... 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?

Personally I only ever did Shakespeare at school, but enjoyed all of it. Were I attempting to sound intellectual or to impress, I could do quite a lot better than referencing things that were on the GCSE syllabus. I suspect this is true of many of us.

However, there's nothing more guaranteed to kill the enjoyment of being immersed in a story than having to (over) analyse every sentence

For some, perhaps but please don't think you speak for everyone. Shakespeare is written to be performed - which lets the actors interpret and explain the words through their acting. I wouldn't read Shakespeare the way I'd read a novel. For me the whole enjoyment is being able to consider the meaning behind the words, appreciate their depth and nuances. And marvel how Shakespeare - in a single word or phrase - can express so much. The more you read the more you get out of it. This is why - from my experience - people often have huge affection for the Shakespeare they did for A level. I did Othello and knew it inside out which gave me huge pleasure. I know people who feel the same about Hamlet, King Lear etc.

Have a look at the Peter Kay Car Share thread. Lots of people, me included, who are discussing the subtlety of writing and humour. Discussing the meaning behind certain comments, where he got his inspiration from (was the discussion about a wedding a nod to Mumsnet?). People are rewatching to see the stuff they missed first time - going back over and analysing it.

With well crafted work it's fun to go over things and peel back the layers.

I tend not to do that when I'm reading the latest detective novel or watching Corrie.

I'm with you on this bit, theonly.

Surely Shakespeare is a way to analyse race and sexism and so on? It can get classes talking about things they wouldn't otherwise feel able to discuss. I remember being absolutely shocked when I found out people as recently as 100 years ago had been playing Shylock as a comic character with a red wig and a big nose. We were studying Nazi Germany in history at the same time and it just brought home to me how all the antisemitic stereotypes joined up. I think before that I'd just naively assumed that it was some odd aberration in Germany - I had this silly, unexamined thought that British people wouldn't be like that.

And, of course, they were and they are.

Nowadays it's the fashion to play Shylock in more sympathetic ways, but when you study the play you really have to think about the questions directors have to consider when they decide how to do the play.

I loved Shakespeare. Our Lit teacher was incredible and rather than simply read and dissect paragraphs he'd have us act out every scene - we'd go out onto the car park and Tybalt and Mercutio would stand on the car park walls shouting their parts with gusto. Each play we studied he managed to somehow bring to life, even Richard III which when I first read it was bloody tedious.

With a great teacher Shakespeare can be an incredible addition to an education regardless of how well-read someone is.

Not that note LRD I think the Everyman Theatre in Liverpool are trying to shake things up with same sex Romeo and Juliet and Othello productions. I think that’s quite exciting.

I would imagine Shakespeare has put more kids off of reading than any other literature out there.

I love reading, always have and can read most things - but Shakespeare is dire.

There is a lot of more appropriate, contemporary literature out there that would be more relevant & enjoyable.

Teachers must love it as it's a low effort subject - all the lessons, crib sheets, reviews, films, Q&A's are already out there to be had.....

Shakespeare has to be a bit more rewarding than Frankenstein or Great Expectations though - what dull uninspiring choices for GCSE.

I studied 4 or 5 Shakespeare plays at school and the teaching methods then didn’t endear him to me. Absolutely agree that the plays should be watched rather than being (over) analysed.

Went to see Much Ado About Nothing some years ago (because David Tennant) and a little way in thought “this is actually funny”. Have also just seen a production of Midsummer Night’s Dream which was hilarious.

With regard to the racism/sexism, presumably when being studied nowadays these provide issues for discussion (but maybe that’s not good enough for the no-platformers)?

And I find it ironic that the patronising posters on this thread are the ones who think because they don’t like Shakespeare then anyone who says they do is some sort of pseudointellectual.

Yanbu. And it should start at primary school.
We have the kids Shakespeare book set and my dc's love it. DS especially likes the violent deaths , his thoughts on the books "everybody dies".

Shakespeare is dire.

Rather a lot of people would disagree with you there ....

My youngest, who is doing a science degree and never really enjoyed gcse English lit, sat down next to me when I started watching Hamlet on the tv a few months ago. The full version, with Andrew Scott in the lead. He watched it all the way through and thoroughly enjoyed it. Nobody made him. But I'll tell him he was wrong to enjoy it and spend over 3 hours watching something 'dire' shall I Illustrious?

LAR - YY, I really want to see the Othello version. I read them talking about why they did it and saying that a lesbian in the military today might face some of the same perceptions Othello faced as a black man in the military back then. Interesting idea.

Surely Shakespeare is a way to analyse race and sexism and so on?

Exactly. As is much of the rest of the Western canon. There won't be much left to teach, even of late 20th century and 21st century literature, if we require it to be free of racism, sexism, and misogyny.

I love the productions where they play around with the original ideas. I show my A Level classes the Julie Taymor film of The Tempest with Helen Mirren as a female Prospero, which allows us to contrast the mother/daughter dynamic to the father/daughter one. The last production of Othello I saw had a black Iago which was fascinating in terms of how it changed the perception of the Othello/Iago relationship.

I agree that the best way to experience Shakespeare is through productions of it. One of my favourite elements of the new A Level spec is the requirement to explore different readings which allows us to really explore the production side of things.

I’m glad you’ve said that LRD. I do wonder if these ideas come about because they have a company of actors and can afford to be a bit more daring in their approaches. They may also just want to do particular plays and decide that they have a couple of great actors who could play the leads who are a different gender. Whatever their motives I think it’s interesting too.

I've just done Macbeth with 7 and 8 year olds, in the language. We did loads of discussion, loads of drama and they got it and loved it and have taken parts of the script outside at playtimes to perform. They are in love with Shakespeare now and want to see some plays!
I do think with the older, GCSE age kids they need to understand that Shakespeare wrote for the lowest common denominator -that they are full of dirty jokes, crude humour and slap stick comedy. The very next scene to the kings murder in Macbeth (which we didn't share with the little ones) is basically a litany of dick jokes about how alcohol makes a man horny, but unable to perform. Most 16yo would find that hilarious, but it's never highlighted in schools!

Rather a lot of people would disagree with you there ....

I'm willing to bet that a significantly larger number would agree with me though....

I was too young to appreciate the small bit of Shakespeare that I did at school.

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

Yes. No question it should be taught and thankfully it frequently is. How sad that some kids can travel through the school without ever encountering this most amazing of writers.

TheFeministDragon Shakespeare added enormously to the English language, Google 'phrases from Shakespeare we still use'. The list is huge, I watched Hamlet a few weeks ago and was astounded by how contemporary many of the phrases are, and they didn't exist before William thought of them. The man was amazing, and he is ours, he should be taught as a matter of national pride if nothing else.

As others have said the language is hard, but when you see it well done good actors can get you through the hard bits and you then see the plots and the characters unfold , and the plots and the characters are the same today as then. Adultery, political ambition, murder, greed, jealousy,love, misunderstanding, racism, pomposity, lust. Its the same as an Agatha Christie, midsummer Murders or Scandi Noir. The only difference being that I can see is that we are not so easily taken in by twins separated at birth.......

Shakespeare was a bit of a snooze at school, but I liked the Kenneth Brannagh films, and the BBC Hollow Crown series.

Anyway, your sister needs to consider the purpose of education. If it were just the immediately useful, then school could be over with quite quickly.

But Tom Bennett puts it like this:
We do not teach because it appears to be immediately practical and useful; we teach because we are helping children to inherit their intellectual heritage, the pearls and rubies of science, art, the humanities. We don't teach it because we think it will help them change a plug (yeah, why isn't he raging about that? Or a million other things I’ll categorise as ‘handy to know’?) We teach them literature, and mathematics, and art, and science, and a dozen other taxonomic milestones, because they are valuable; because they are important. Because without their acquisition, this generation is dislocated from the last one and every one prior to that, and every cultural and scientific asset is lost.

@noblegiraffe

I totally agree with your post about the purpose of education. But my sister was of the view that I was an intellectual snob, totally out of touch with the vast proportion of children who struggle with the current curriculum and who do not have parents who are capable of teaching them life skills. She believes that schools should balance life skills with academics until 16 when those children who are academically inclined can switch to a more academic curriculum.

viques, google isn't actually that reliable. Did you see my post about the poster the Globe people are selling? And how it's pretty inaccurate?

It's a myth that Shakespeare imported quite so many phrases into the language. I like Shakespeare. I just think it's worth being accurate.

believes that schools should balance life skills with academics

It does already?