to think reading Romeo and Juliet at 8 is feasible?

[lolaflores]

Yes, an 8 year old could make out the words, put them in a sentence, but to understand fully the language and meaning....slightly beyond them perhaps. I was confidently told this at a school reunion the other day. I didn't question it at the time, but did wonder afterwards if this could be genuine.

you think it is or it isn't feasible?

Watch gnomeo and Juliet - they are more likely to get it

Someone bought DD Stephen Hawkin's a brief history of time when she was about 8. She could read it but couldn't understand a word. Sounds like the same thing.

I don't see why not. You don't say whether they read the whole thing or just acted out a passage or two. Shakespeare has this reputation for being 'difficult' language with deep meanings, but his plays are also rollicking good yarns designed to get bums on seats.

Why would anyone think it a good idea for an 8 year old to read Shakespeare?
Romeo & Juliet far too much sex and violence I'd have thought.

There are certainly plays which an 8 year old can watch (DDs intro to the bard at about that age - The Tempest at the Minack theatre with rain at exactly the right point - magic indeed!) - that's where you start not reading the text, surely?

I don't think it could be possible, to read Romeo and Juilet as an 8 year old, unaided and entirely understand the language etc.

yes I agree
I don't think an 8 year old would have the emotional intelligence to understand it although they may well be able to 'read' it.

They may be able to read it but not understand it,

I was a similar age when I was made to read the hobbit (I had read every other book in school) as a result I hate the hobbit or anything to do with Lotr as it was so boring at that age!

Those were my thoughts at the time but kept them to myself. Wish I had clumped her round the head and shouted "twat", but hey.

Maybe the child had read one of those 'Tales from Shakespeare' books - those are designed for children.

A persistent 8 year old could sit through a performance of the play (especially a short and lively production) and get something out of it, but I think it would be a very rare 8 year old who could read the text cold and appreciate it in any meaningful way, the language is just so far from 20th century English.

I was taken to see 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' about that age and very much enjoyed it. I'm sure I would have lost interest immediately if given it to read, and it's a bit different from Romeo and Juliet.

I would add the parent to the twat register in my head.

I also wonder if reading stuff too early doesn't cause a problem. As in, I read Pride and Prejudice at about 9. Read the words, mostly understood the story, but really didn't understand enough of the context or the subtle humour to 'get it'. So I wrote off Jane Austen (been there, read that, thought it was a bit pants). It wasn't until I saw the BBC adaptation that I realised there might be more to it than I had seen aged 9 and went back to it (late teens I think). Then, I thought it was brilliant.

I should also mention I read a Poirot at about 7 or 8 and didn't sleep for weeks. I sneaked it off my Dad's bookshelf and got terrified about the murderers that were clearly round every corner!

Being able to read the words and sort of follow the plot is not the same as being able to really read and enjoy and understand, and if you try way befpre you are ready, you are likely to dismiss it and be reluctant to try again. I'm all for stretching and challenging kids, but it needs to be vaguely in their grasp or it will put them off for life, which would be a shame.

Which is what I asked, and firmly told NO, she read the play. Not acting out little bits, but sat down and read the whole yoke. Which I found very difficult to take in so I made my thin mouth of not impressed and ploughed off in a different direction.

babybythesea - I agree. It spoils it for them.

I love uniCorny's idea of a twat register.

My Ds's school did 'midsummers Night's Dream' for their school play last year, they were 9 - 11 yrs old. They studied it then rewrote bits and adapted it (as musical)! It was amazing. They really got it, and it was very funny..... guess it depends on what the teacher does with it?

Wait till they're older and stick on the Leonardo DVD. Job done.

My 8 yo could read it, she could also probably follow the plot.
But she would get nothing out of it. Romeo and Juliet is a wonderful love story, far beyond the true comprehension of a pre pubescent 8 year old. They would miss the whole point of the story!

I used to creep around the garden reading the Macbeth witch bits when I was 8.

Romeo and Juliet, no chance!

Only if the kid is really taken with it. There were some lines which struck me at that age...and all the rest just went whoosh over my head.

It is feasible. It depends what you mean by "reading it" though. I was a geeky sort of child who picked up totally unsuitable books just because they were difficult: I read some of my dad's radiology tomes, War and Peace, plus some medieval stuff (not too far off the idea of reading Shakespeare in English) under the age of ten. I did not particularly enjoy them, nor (with hindsight) understand them. At some point I also started watching the stock exchange reports and I could have told you who was going up and who was going down. I am no stockbroker, nor am I writer or anything like that.

My parents were embarrassed (no boasting there!), and needless to say, I was not very popular. It took me a while to grow out of such twattishness (is that even a word?).

It would be jumping the gun. Plus there is a lot of bloodshed in R&J which....doesn't quite lead anywhere if you are an 8 year old and don't understand adult emotions and conflict. Don't really see the point of introducing it so prematurely when there are lots of great books for 8 year olds which would be more boring if they read them later or not at all. Eg a friend's daughter has read abridged versions of just about every classic before the age of 8, and at 9 is now not quite convinced that there's any point reading the actual book rather than the "sound bite" version she knew. Kind of a pity, because she's missing out on the beauty of the narration, and the drama of the actual conversations and speeches.

Macbeth is actually a bit more reasonable - man wants to be king, goes about it in a very wrong way, wife too, both get their comeuppance. The witch bits can be quite comical in a Halloween sort of way. The Tempest - if written in very abridged form, perhaps.

Actually much of the appeal of Shakespeare is the way they are written, innuendos and violence and all. It's not just about the plots. Think it's so much better to leave it till they are teens to discover the proper plays.

I think it's up to the individual child whether reading something early spoils it or just makes them more eager to learn. Some children are spurred on by the very sense that there's more layers in there.

Even as an adult you might not "get" every single dimension of an author the first time.

I read Kazantzakis' Holy Francis at the age of 9. Scared me shitless but in a way I probably got something out of it that I wouldn't have later.

I read King Lear at that age. Gave me horrible nightmares. As did Dracula.

Perfectly feasible, but will not have understood context etc. genius child will still need to re-read!