... 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?

But, sleep, I was responding to you talking about the Lion King and Shakespeare.

You can't really participate in that conversation, then be surprised people discuss other spin-offs.

And, no, you didn't 'explain' anything - you just told us all what the play in question is. Which is very nice, but so what? You think we don't know, or you think it magically makes your point for you?

Would it have made my point had I told you the Lion King is a famous disney movie? Or would you not (rightly) have thought I sounded a right tit to substitute that point for actual engagement with what was being said?

The point is that plenty of Shakespeare adaptations, spin-offs and modernisations are complex and intelligent. And many are simple and fun. And, I admit, many are shite.

It doesn't really prove that the original was simple, nor for the 'uneducated'. Still unsure who they were, mind ...

In a discussion about the modern relevance or otherwise of the Bard, I thought I'd mention this piece

On Quoting Shakespeare by Bernard Levin

If you cannot understand my argument, and declare ``It's Greek to me'', you are quoting Shakespeare; if you claim to be more sinned against than sinning, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you recall your salad days, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you act more in sorrow than in anger; if your wish is farther to the thought; if your lost property has vanished into thin air, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you have ever refused to budge an inch or suffered from green-eyed jealousy, if you have played fast and loose, if you have been tongue-tied, a tower of strength, hoodwinked or in a pickle, if you have knitted your brows, made a virtue of necessity, insisted on fair play, slept not one wink, stood on ceremony, danced attendance (on your lord and master), laughed yourself into stitches, had short shrift, cold comfort or too much of a good thing, if you have seen better days or lived in a fool's paradise -why, be that as it may, the more fool you , for it is a foregone conclusion that you are (as good luck would have it) quoting Shakespeare; if you think it is early days and clear out bag and baggage, if you think it is high time and that that is the long and short of it, if you believe that the game is up and that truth will out even if it involves your own flesh and blood, if you lie low till the crack of doom because you suspect foul play, if you have your teeth set on edge (at one fell swoop) without rhyme or reason, then - to give the devil his due - if the truth were known (for surely you have a tongue in your head) you are quoting Shakespeare; even if you bid me good riddance and send me packing, if you wish I was dead as a door-nail, if you think I am an eyesore, a laughing stock, the devil incarnate, a stony-hearted villain, bloody-minded or a blinking idiot, then - by Jove! O Lord! Tut tut! For goodness' sake! What the dickens! But me no buts! - it is all one to me, for you are quoting Shakespeare.

Sorry about the wall of text

You made the comparison between the two LRDtheFeministDragon. Apart from the connection of Shakespeare (or minced beef if you prefer), the two were different enough for me to assume you hadn't seen the spin off. At the risk of being accused of going all Wiki on you again, a spin off is different to a remake. R&G follows the story of two of Hamlet's minor characters, The Lion King retells the story with lions and Elton John. Not the same thing.

Also a valid point made this morning that the history plays are not Shakespeare's storylines, they are based on actual events.

I can never really understand the insistence that LK is the modern "version" of Hamlet comparison.

The main difference for me would be that LK has a happy ending and Hamlet doesn't. But apart from that I don't recall Simba's mother marrying Scar and surely Gertrude marrying his father's murderer is one of Hamlet's key gripes. Also, there's no Ophelia character in LK, and she is surely a key protagonist in Hamlet. In fact apart from father killed by uncle, there's not much similarity to me.

I think the maker's of LK have claimed it had many "inspirations" (much like a lot of Shakespeare's plays in fact) but not just Hamlet.

No, not the same things, but comparable things. As you would notice, if you read my post, since I was comparing them.

Mind you, I think this conversation is going to go over your head if you think the history plays are 'not Shakespeare's storylines' because they are 'based on actual events'.

I know there are lots of people who really hate literary (or historical) analysis. They just don't like the nit-picking element of it. They want to know what's true and what isn't, what's factual and what's not, and there's an end of it.

That is fine. We are all different. I have limited interest in imaginary numbers, because that's just not something that does it for me.

But it is quite arrogant and weird to presume that, just because you are not terribly interested in something, it is therefore extremely simple.

I don't scoff at mathematicians and tell them 'duh, you're just playing games with numbers and you'd be better off using a nice calculator for sums'.

In the same way, I think reducing Shakespeare's history plays to something that isn't 'his' because it's 'based on actual events' dismisses huge questions, like what history is, what bias is, where the line is between artistic and historical truth, what originality is ... I could go on.

Ok, those things may not interest you. But you surely know they're major questions for other people, so why pretend not?

TBH, I think the most interesting thing about the Lion King parallel isn't how accurately it echoes Hamlet. It's the fact that so many people want to claim it as a parallel. That surely says something about the way we see Shakespeare as a cultural object. Loads of Disney is based on something else, and we're just not as invested in that, but when it's Shakespeare it really matters, both to those who dislike him and those who like him.

It's the same with the language argument. People seem to really want to believe Shakespeare originated masses of phrases, even if the evidence doesn't really stack up. Students need to study Shakespeare just to understand how myths are made. Why is he so popular? Why do people still (on this thread, even) associate him with national(istic) pride? The myth is way in excess of the content of his writing, and not always in a good way, but it's endured for centuries.

I agree LRD being "based on true events" doesn't make a piece of work unoriginal or unworthy.

I watched The Darkest Hour recently. Really enjoyed it, critically acclaimed, Oscar-winning performance. Should it be disregarded because it was (loosely in places!) on true events?

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.

Fortunately for the future of art and literature and creativity and the imagination and inspiration, many of the students I have encountered over the years have managed to become both literate and literary. But you do win the prize for the saddest post on this thread so well done for that. Is that really all you think has value in the world? Instructions amd emails and grammar? What a sad life.

the history plays are not Shakespeare's storylines, they are based on actual events

Barely any of Shakespeare’s plays are original in terms of their storylines. What’s your point?

Time would be better spent on grammar IMO.

My dc did more grammar in primary than i did in the whole of my years of school in the 60s and 70s.

LRD, I get your comments about the cultural weight of Shakespeare much of from Victorian literary critics but you seem to think that his use of language is not great? I'm afraid you are pitted against the world's academics on that, I am not going to bother arguing to as you seem convinced of yourself but you could start by going to any bookshop and looking at the literally criticism section, or any theatre's showings over the past 400 years. And I do have A BA MA PHD and PGCE in English so could argue but you want to be right.

No, not at all what I think (though, plenty of my colleagues would have negative things to say about Shakespeare's language use, actually. There isn't perfect consensus).

I'm sure you're very qualified, but you haven't actually grasped my point (it's a long thread, so probably easily done). I'm saying Shakespeare's language is not as original as often suggested. The issue is that plenty of people believe that Shakespeare invented a huge number of phrases. A commonplace list has been quoted at least twice.

The problem is, Shakespeare demonstrably didn't invent all of those phrases. Many of them were already circulating in earlier writing. That's fine, of course - it doesn't suggest anything negative about a writer that he uses the language as it exists. But what's interesting here is the way that the 'Shakespeare myth' is created - it bigs up one 'original genius' and ignores a lot of medieval writing, because we like to imagine Shakespeare represents a very different (and more modern, enlightened, original) society from the recent medieval past he was looking back over when he wrote.

I absolutely don't think that observing where Shakespeare got some of his phrases is the same thing as saying his language is bad. I don't even think it makes him derivative - I love his language and always have. But, because I'm a medievalist who also works on Shakespeare, it interests me that we are still so invested in believing that all these phrases are original. Would people really believe Shakespeare was less good, or less worth watching, if they knew he was borrowing? That seems odd to me.

I think its good for all to be exposed to it whether they understand it or "get it" or not - its inspired everyone from rappers to nobel winners and there are lots of everyday references which refer to it. The thing I have issue with is how it is taught - but I have issue with they way alot of things are taught not just that

I believe his skill was that of representing how things were at the time - injecting the humour and quicky everyday sayings and turns of phrase and use of language as jest etc. I actually don't rate him that highly and he certainly wasn't high brow as seen today.

(It's mean to comment on typos, and God knows I make enough myself, but I adore the idea of recourse to the 'literally critics'.)

many of the students I have encountered over the years have managed to become both literate and literary.

Yes, funny how those two often run in tandem.

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.

That's my sister's argument but the idea that she might be right left me feeling a bit depressed. I just think we should have greater aspirations for our children, shouldn't we?

Op, I agree. Can't we teach both?

I was taught the structure of a letter and how to analyse a text. I compared articles and look at Shakespare. I went on to college to study English

Ridiculous that kids "can't get it"! My 15 yo DD is studying her GCSE and she can comprehend Macbeth perfectly fine. Of course, I understand that's not the case for every child and that my DD is blessed in that sense - but she's got a nifty little copy that has modern translations of words that have gone out of fashion, extra context etc.

I think it's good that kids are taught how to analyse, comprehend and look into deeper things.

but she's got a nifty little copy that has modern translations of words that have gone out of fashion, extra context etc.

So, in other words, she doesn't get it in its original form.

Tell me again why it's ridiculous that other kids don't get it.

Well said RedDwarves

I love Shakespeare! But the first time I actually SAW Shakespeare was a revelation! Absolutely hilarious! I'm torn, because I think the insight into the text are really interesting, but you need to have the experience of seeing it visually too.

...and we come full circle, back to my original argument LRDtheFeministDragon. You don't like Shakespeare, then you're a philostine. There it is in black and white, your assertion that it must "go over my head". And I return to my original point that the emperor is naked, perhaps you might explore this further when you delve into the myth again. I believe the principles of Occam's razor may help, would you like a WIKI link?

Meanwhile, TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross decides that a poster who would like a more practical approach to learning, must have a sad life. Okay, then.

Also, to revisit the point I made about the History plays, of course they are biased, I highlighted the contemporary cultural elements of both Richard III and Henry VIII as examples, but the events are real, as are the principal characters. There is artistic licence in all literature.

One school trip to the theatre should do it, you like great, if not then that's fine, it'll give them a taster though.