... 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?

I don’t think Shakespeare should be tested in the curriculum but I do think an awareness of Shakespeare and who he was and what he wrote should be. Shakespeare is renowned all around the world. To come from U.K. and not even know who he is would be a bit strange imo.

get past experts first

Even experts only have their interpretation or what the author tells them it means. Only the author really knows. I would hardly call all the poems in school/college anthologies brilliant. Again, to me, that's subjective.

You’re assuming that there isn’t any extra knowledge gained by the experts in becoming experts in literary analysis that may help their interpretation along. You’re also assuming that all authors are simply ignorant keyboard bashers who accidentally create a work that includes foreshadowing or use of colour or whatever. Perhaps Steinbeck just thought Lennie killing a puppy then killing Curley’s wife sounded like a good plot line?

A lot of modern authors discuss how it's really only in editing or reading back their work or having someone point it out to them that they've noticed foreshadowing or particular themes. It doesn't make them ignorant keyboard bashers but that the creative process and the human mind is complicated and very few creative projects really go along any sort of pre-planned lines. They kinda have a life of their own. I've had many characters and threads get away from me.

I would bet that those modern authors had a solid grounding in English literature.

My DD did the Shakespeares Schools festival when she was in secondary school but there were also local primary schools taking part.
One of the Primary schools did an edited version of Macbeth, they were excellent and clearly enjoying themselves

Music! I loved the little bit of Chaucer we did. The Pardoners's Tale was epic! It is after all down to the enthusiasm of the teacher. I studied Antony and Cleopatra and there are parts that still make me well up with tears, they are so emotive .
Bananas "a Haaaandbag?! Fantastic

Perhaps Steinbeck just thought Lennie killing a puppy then killing Curley’s wife sounded like a good plot line

You really are reaching now. I never said nothing has a deeper meaning, just that not every single little thing in a story has meaning.

"Ignorant keyboard bashers", no, they are creative minds, who don't always stick to their plans or over-analyse every detail.

I don’t think Shakespeare should be tested in the curriculum but I do think an awareness of Shakespeare and who he was and what he wrote should be.

I agree. Shakespeare was fundamentally important to the history of the English language and kids could be taught his influence on the development of the language, words he "invented" etc. But I do think it's taken too far when a whole play is studied in minute detail. My own son was quite keen on Shakespeare - we'd bought him a "kiddie" version with several abridged plays which he loved, and he got really into Shakespeare when we visited Stratford. But he's just done his GCSE for which he studied Macbeth and he's been completely demotivated by the in depth teaching of it. I have to say I agree because I had to suffer learning King Lear for my A Level Eng Lit which I absolutely hated. There must be a middle ground of teaching him in a more modern relevant way.

Yes, bathildab, the Hamlet quote was tongue in cheek, and I couldn't squeeze in the slings and arrows try as I might! You hear "there's the rub" everywhere nowadays don't you, y'know, cause Shakespeare's so relevant?

However, I didn't state that Shakespeare wasn't important. Certainly as a key to a forgotten vernacular, he is invaluable. My objection to his work is that it is lauded as intellectual. It's not, and was never intended to be. Shakespeare's prolific plays were intended to entertain the uneducated masses (in contemporary language). His storylines are largely nonsensical and his humour crass.

It's like an author can't just write about someone eating an orange with their lunch without someone trying to analyse what the orange is a symbol for. I'm saying there can be overkill, and you're taking it to mean that I think absolutely no planning goes into any novel, ever.

As with all subjects literature must be taught with passion and an ability to get your student to delve behind the text itself.

Shakespeare wasn’t meant to be read, it was meant to be watched if not in a theatre then in a video.

But so much of out current language stems from the texts, it’s vital it is discussed in schools.

sleep, that's a bit unfair. What about the Blackfriars plays?

It's like an author can't just write about someone eating an orange with their lunch without someone trying to analyse what the orange is a symbol for.

Best not study Art History either, what might look like a random collection of shed detritus and a fruit bowl take on a whole new meaning.

Best not study Art History either, what might look like a random collection of shed detritus and a fruit bowl take on a whole new meaning.

No, probably not.

Tell me the meaning of a single circle painted on a white canvas? Oh, the skill.
Abstract modern art kills me.

someone trying to analyse what the orange is a symbol for.

But the analysis has to make sense in the context of the novel. If your protagonist is eating a cheese sandwich, then there’s probably nothing behind it. If your protagonist is eating a pomegranate, it’s probably worth a closer look. If the character is depressed and the curtains are blue then there could be a link. Why not?

But the analysis has to make sense in the context of the novel. If your protagonist is eating a cheese sandwich, then there’s probably nothing behind it. If your protagonist is eating a pomegranate, it’s probably worth a closer look. If the character is depressed and the curtains are blue then there could be a link. Why not?

There could be a link, there could not be. My point is merely that sometimes I feel people read too deeply into shallow details.

I suppose it also depends on how you rate the skill of the author. If it’s an author who is known for novels packed with meaning, then the blue curtains are far more likely to be significant than if you’re reading 50 Shades of Grey.

Some of Shakespeare's plays are considered not to have been written by him at all, (Merchant of Venice for example). Allegedly stolen from Christopher Marlow (Dr.Faustus)who died mysteriously in Deptford.Possibly a hit arranged by Shakespeare who was jealous of his writing.

Just saying....

It's only hard because kids don't want to. It really isn't that hard. It's old English at most. Taught well it's brilliant. Yes I am a Shakespeare fan but I was taught it very badly and still understand it and love it.
Best ways to learn it are to see it l, hear it, experience it.
We compared texts to modern adaptations.
Twelfth night - she's the man
Romeo and Juliet - gnomeo and Juliet
Hamlet - the lion king

It should be taught and appreciated. It's all brilliant and very very clever

The Blackfriars theatre was open to all LRDtheFeministDragon, and was made exclusive merely by being expensive. Shakespeare's later plays are no more intellectual or unbiased than his earlier works. Amongst them you'll find the usual formula of cross-dressing disguise, implausible reconciliations of hereto unknown family members and faked deaths. As I mentioned before with Richard III, Henry VIII stops at the birth of Elizabeth I (no mention of her mother's beheading or his subsequent marriages) and is hugely biased.

@noblegiraffe

Yes to that, of course

My objection to his work is that it is lauded as intellectual. It's not, and was never intended to be. Shakespeare's prolific plays were intended to entertain the uneducated masses (in contemporary language). His storylines are largely nonsensical and his humour crass.

“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.”

Yeah, crass and nonsensical.

I think Shakespeare's work is disliked by those who don't understand it. His works have been adapted. Such as the lion king.
People don't slate that

sleep, I do know that. Using expense to make something exclusive still makes it exclusive. Honestly, I think it is rubbish to suggest the plays are all just simple stuff for common people (and pretty insulting to ordinary people, too).

But, hey, keep explaining Shakespeare 101, right? With all the anachronistic terminology you seem to enjoy.