... to think that Shakespeare should be taught in schools?

[LorelaiVictoriaGilmore]

Just that really. I had a massive argument with my sister this afternoon about a number of things to do with the education system in the UK but this is one of the key points we disagreed on. I think it is good that Shakespeare is taught in schools because there lots of kids who do get something out of it and there are kids who may go on to university to study drama or English literature and it would be a shame if they got to 18 and had never been taught Shakespeare. My sister thinks it shouldn't be taught in schools because lots of kids will never 'get' it and never use it. She thinks that those kids who do want to go to uni to read English literature or drama will discover it on their own. I can sort of see what she's saying, especially given the number of kids who leave school without good literacy skills... but I still think I'm right! AIBU?

“Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.”

This ^^ is what I don't enjoy reading. I can't even begin to work out what it means.

When it comes to Shakespeare I just have a mental block. I just don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to understand it. Yet I can read other classical literature quite easily. Having studied French at A level I have also read Racine (awful stuff), Moliere, Voltaire and Balzac. I developed a love of French literature and bought several English translations of classical French authors.

I had no idea that The Lion King is loosely based on Hamlet BTW. I have tried watching Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet and Much Ado About Nothing and couldn't engage with them at all. Although I preferred Much Ado About Nothing to the other two. Sorry, but I found them boring. All the flowery language just makes me switch off. Just give me straight prose please.

I think this thread has posters who love English literature. I'm just an intellectual philistine when it comes to Shakespeare and I think that while rather a lot of people love Shakespeare I think equally as many people dislike it or don’t understand it.

What? Link me to the exact quote on WIKI please LRDtheFeministDragon. Unless you're bullshitting, I assure you it's a fluke. I watched the Daniel Radcliffe streaming of the National's R&G and know about Stoppard mainly through his screenplays. No posturing here I assure you, despite my '101' descriptions.

Now who's trying to belittle and codescend, hmm?

“Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.”

Play's finished. Go home. We all die. The end! ;)

*Which plays have you read/seen Illustrious - and what didn't you like about them?

Crikey, most of them over the years I think. Some of the modern adaptations are OK, but we're talking about it being "taught in schools".*

Crikey Illustrious - i can't imagine what would drive you to read/watch "most of" Shakespeare's 37(ish) plays if you find them dire?

I know we're talking about Shakespeare being taught in schools - you don't think it should because Shakespeare "is dire". Just trying to get to the bottom of that.

Oh, good lord.

Of course I don't think you are literally quoting wiki.

I was making the point that you sound bizarre and rather ridiculous when, every time someone else mentions something, you respond with a potted summary of what that thing is - just in case the original poster didn't know? Just to prove you do know?

Do you do this every thread? 'OP, you say you made a nice cottage pie today. Cottage pie is a dish made of minced beef cooked with carrots and onions, and topped with mashed potato.'

Or what?

I am pretty fucking stupid but not stupid enough to have an argument with LRD about literature.

"Play's finished. Go home. We all die. The end! ;)"

That'll do for me

I see this hasn't been shared yet, but Mr Blackadder sums up my feelings pretty well on the subject

Which bit of Prospero's speech above is difficult, though?

You could analyse the imagery & metre for hours - & I'm happy for people to leave that to those of us who like a bit of Shakespeare - my year 8s have just done a cracking job on their Tempest essays - but is it that hard to read? Really?

My eyes glaze over completely at some of ds's science homework. I don't get it. When I try, I usually find it really interesting, but it doesn't come easily to me.

I don't assume, on the basis that it doesn't immediately sing out its meaning to me, that all gcse science is bullshit.

I conclude that it's challenging & I don't get it, & - given that I've left school & I'm not a scientist - I don't have to get it.

I don't decide that there's nothing TO get!

I can read it Purple but don't understand what it is trying to convey other than everything is make believe. I don't appreciate the beauty of language the way you do. I just want a good story in plain language. Maybe it is a mild form of dyslexia or I'm just a bit thick.

Yanbu. Studied a play at school and went to see it at the theatre. Still remember it.

Oh, and I didn't say Shakespeare was bullshit. That must hsve been another poster. I said that I disliked it because I find it difficult to understand.

Seeing it acted makes it way easier to understand.

I think it’s ridiculous. The plots are shit and the language is outdated. Time would be better spent on grammar IMO. Also, students should be taught how to use our language practically. Writing instructions, structuring a letter/email. All much more useful than thine shite.

I hated Shakespeare in school. I loved English as a subject (and did go on to do both a higher and an advanced higher) but reading/dissecting/writing essays on bloody Shakespeare almost put me off the subject altogether. No one liked reading Shakespeare, not even the teachers. I don’t know why we are so focused on forcing it on our children. There are plenty of other ways to study old English (many poems which are shorter but get the point across all the same).

Being in Scotland we also done a fair amount of Rabbie Burns but that was slightly more tolerable as his poems tended to be much shorter than a full Shakespeare play. It was still far from enjoyable but easier and quicker to get through.

I somewhat agree.
It was all I was taught and pretty much all my DD (20) was taught.
People thrive under different reading styles, some people love Shakespeare and some don't. I think doing it for a year, or mixing it with other things is fab.
I don't think the attitude that I and my dd have experienced (EVERYTHING Shakespeare and nothing else) is helpful at all. I really hated reading, until I left school and could actually choose what to read. I'm a bookworm now and I still hate Shakespeare

The language of Shakespeare is beautiful. However, if you find the plays too...er...long, you can always read a couple of his sonnets. They’re considerably shorter.

Strawman tactic noted LRDtheFeministDragon. Meanwhile, LarLarLand salutes your powers and attempts to label me as stupid by saying she's also stupid (but not quite as stupid, I be muchest stoooopider, obviously).

You can't attack the points I raise, therefore you attack me personally. You compared a 1960's absurdist piece to Shakespeare, I pointed out the connection between the two but explained the difference. Keeping with the cottage pie theme, it's like you comparing a lasagne, the connection being minced meat. If you did that, then yes, it's likely I'd explain that lasagne, though it contains minced meat, is vastly different from a cottage pie in that it is an Italian dish made with sheets of pasta and tomato and bechamel sauce. Hope that sweeps what's left of that strawman away and now perhaps you can address the actual points raised next time.

ScattyCharley has summed up her argument in a far more concise way. "I think it’s ridiculous. The plots are shit and the language is outdated. Time would be better spent on grammar IMO. Also, students should be taught how to use our language practically. Writing instructions, structuring a letter/email. All much more useful than thine shite."

This, basically, this!

At the risk of sounding like a total pseudy wanker, I think English teachers do have a responsibility to make Shakespeare fun. I'd far, far rather my year 7s doing Twelfth Night had enjoyed it as a romp, written fabulous essays on whether Malvolio is or isn't a sympathetic character, & moved on, than that they analysed every single line.

If they hated it, I've taught it wrong & need to re - think (& I've very much been there - recent grumpy Y11 group, Macbeth as coursework - I was busy dealing with behaviour issues & didn't do it justice.

I totally get people saying 'meh, doesn't do it for me'.

My dad is a huge modern jazz aficionado. I've hated his taste in music for 40 years (& he has no time for mine, to be fair).

In recent years I've been helping him transfer his vinyl to digital, find obscure stuff online etc.

I still wouldn't enjoy listening to my dad's record collection, but I can now understand it a bit better - I can begin to appreciate the musicians he really rates & why he likes them.

I'm tone deaf when it comes to jazz. Other people are tone deaf when it comes to Shakespeare.

Neither is a 'wrong' position.

But 'I can't hear what people who like this can hear. It must be rubbish & we probably shouldn't take it seriously because frankly I don't get it' says more about me than it does about modern jazz, for example.

@moonkinsx

I'm not saying you can't compare them in an analysis. I meant comparable in enjoyability. You seem to be implying that if you like The Lion King then you will also like Hamlet... I'm saying that just because they share the same basic story, doesn't make them so similar as to be interchangeable. I'd much rather go and see The Lion King in a theatre (seen it twice) than Hamlet. For me, TLK is more fun.

And more accessible in terms of humour and language. Besides, TLK has brilliant musical numbers ... Although not as brilliant as Phantom of The Opera

*Uyulala
*
I am the same the lion king is magnificent (stage show over the film any day!!)
However my point I was trying to make is that people are very quick to slander Shakespeare's work calling it 'outdated'. Yet many do not realise how often they use the language and enjoy the stories themselves. I think it should be taught in schools and I'm very glad that it generally is. I was lucky enough to be taught it in drama and have a drama teacher who would help me over my non existent English teacher.
I've got a huge passion for Shakespare so clearly biased.

We went to see Julius Caeser at The Bridge a few months back ,my dc 20 and 22 loved it .and found it hugely relevent to today
Helped we had mob tickets so very immersive experience

You can’t give Shakespeare credit for the plots, just because he happened to use the Hamlet plot before Disney did, nor can you say that you’re “studying Shakespeare” if you just look at the stories. Almost all of them are taken wholesale from other sources - they’re no more “Shakespeare’s stories” than Romeo + Juliet is Baz Lurman’s or Clueless is Amy Heckerling’s.

It’s all about the language and the detailed character work and if you haven’t studied that then what’s the point?

Interestingly, I discovered while doing a quick background google that the original of Hamlet explains the most annoying thing about Shakespeare’s plot. Hamlet senior and Claudius ruled jointly, and that’s why nobody ever objects to Claudius taking the throne or says that Hamlet should have it. Why Shakespeare couldn’t spare half a line to say the same thing defeats me.

I used to teach English. I disagree, Shakespeare should NOT be taught before 16.
The l vast majority of children find it difficult, confusing, and down right boring. Why would we want them to feel this way about literature?
We want our children to be excited to read, to feel they can understand it, to laugh and to cry. A novel that can make 16 year old boys cry (such as The Kite Runner) is what will inspire them to pursue higher level English and become captivated by the world of reading.