... 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?

Some more crass and nonsensical rubbish for the masses here

As with all things, it's how it's taught and the chance to see a really high quality production. Real shame that some posters were put off it.

There's a line in a Frank Kermode book I like, where he suggests that an audience (the 'uneducated masses'?) who could listen to one of John Donne's sermons just down the road from the playhouses, 'might not consider even Coriolanus impossibly strenuous'. I like the idea that, instead of assuming Shakespeare is dumbed down pap just because ordinary people went to see his plays, we might assume ordinary people in Jacobethan London were, you know, maybe a bit more educated than us?

I never know what people mean by uneducated in this context, anyway?

I think Shakespeare's work is disliked by those who don't understand it.

I understood it alright and we had a really enthusiastic teacher so I knew it inside out - I got an A grade at A level. I still didn't like it and have no wish to watch/read another play of his. I respect the guy for his influence on the English Language but that doesn't mean I have to pretend to like his work.

I think it depends on the teacher. We had an excellent English teacher and were taught Shakespeare from year 9 up. I went on to do A level English and a degree in Eng Lit. My sons both took part in a school Shakespeare festival in year 5, and performed as a class in an abridged version of A Midsummer Night's Dream. They auditioned, learned parts and stagecraft and performed with other schools doing other plays in a real theatre, for an evening show. They all loved it.

Badbuny

His work is taken and made into modern adaptations which are loved and generally uncredited. The main example of this is Lion king and hamlet. Very few people realise this link. Claim they love lion king and they hate Shakespeare's works. His plays were not his only works, his influence on British language is something alone to be admired and thankful for.
His sonnets are powerful and another thing to be wondered yet often misunderstood and over looked.
Hope I didn't offend at all clearly way too passionate over here.
In my experience people who have disliked Shakespeare have never understood it and just disregarded it (hence why I said what i did)

Ciderwithsusie

The Shakespeare's schools festival is brilliant. I took part in this twice in school and it was so great to see young children passionate about Shakespeare's works!!

The main example of this is Lion king and hamlet. Very few people realise this link. Claim they love lion king and they hate Shakespeare's works.

Well, yes, but The Lion King is much more entertaining than reading Shakespeare for many people. Just because it's based on Hamlet doesn't make it comparable.

I was running a workshop for people with learning disabilities and children typical or otherwise.

We had to work towards a performance and on the night of the announcement of what sort of performance it was to be I had no idea.

Some of the adult helpers made a petition for everyone to be an animal or an inanimate object - I have never, in what seems like a hundred years, asked anyone to be a tree.

Still no idea though! After the warm up games I had to make the announcement...

'We're going to do Romeo and Juliet.' because there was a copy of it hanging round next to me in the workshop room.

We started at the end and discovered the tragedy. No words were needed for that - everyone understood. Then, with the expert guidance of great teachers, the romance was interpreted by the children.

We pulled it off! People were crying.

It starts with a story.

Hey nonny nonny LRDtheFeministDragon, so glad you've highlighted the anachronistic language, cause that was kinda the point in using it y'know. Is there such a thing as a sarcasm emoji? There really should be. I might invent one and patent it.....watch this space! In the meantime, yes, I confirm that, as you state, every Shakespeare phrase I quote is as anachronistic as the works from whence they came.

Thank you so much for the Withnail & I clip TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross. One of my all time favourite films! Grant's dislusioned portrayal of a 'serious' actor (serious = Shakespearian) is beautifully nuanced (I love Michael Elphick's Farmers four word summation of him "prancing like a tit"). As you've used the clip in defence of the Bard's works, I can only assume you've never seen the film. Please do watch it. It's the tale of two out of work actors who go on holiday "by mistake" and, unlike Shakespeare, you won't have to pretend it's funny, because it genuinely is.

I think it teaches linguistic literacy. For instance, often, you need to parse the sentences up in order to get the meaning so enclosed within the interrupted sentence is another message and you don't get the entire meaning until the very end of the sentence precisely because it's interrupted. It makes students hold multiple thoughts in their head, develop critical literacy skills.

This could, of course, be offered via another form - advertising, for example. Shakespeare, however, is almost like a different language and I just think displacing yourself as a reader to a period in time where values, humour, norms were different, is quite a useful learning experience. It takes us out of ourselves and shakes up our assumptions (in that we learn that everything is, in actuality, a product of its time rather than intrinsically of value). Beyond the linguistic skills then is a broadening of perspective - if that makes sense.

Typo, dislusioned = delusional

You used 'hetero' to highlight anachronism? What?!

I don't follow what you mean. Clearly just too much of a pleb.

Uyulala
How is redoing someone's work in a modernised form not comparable? One of the english classes for my GCSEs did hamlet compared to the lion king. Defiantly comparable.
Shakespeare's work has influenced a lot and is used every day
'Wild goose chase' came from Romeo and Juliet
'Seen better days' as is 'you can have too much of a good thing' from as you like it

I've discussed this in great detail with my old sociology teacher. He was against Shakespeare (as he didn't understand it) and felt it shouldn't be taught. I argued the above point and more and he went home and bought some of the works to read

If I hadn't done Shakespeare at A level and learned how to read it my degree would have been so much harder.

Did I use hetero? Surely not, more likely hitherto but misspelled. Unfortunately, my phone has its own idea about things LRDtheFeministDragon.

As you've used the clip in defence of the Bard's works, I can only assume you've never seen the film. Please do watch it. It's the tale of two out of work actors who go on holiday "by mistake" and, unlike Shakespeare, you won't have to pretend it's funny, because it genuinely is.

Yes, I’ve seen the film (how would I know about the clip otherwise?) - it’s excellent - and have no idea why you would assume I haven’t? Clearly you have seen it, but obviously didn’t get it if you can’t see why that soliloquy from Hamlet is used in it. But then, I forgot, you don’t get Shakespeare. A shame, because its use in that film at that moment is really significant.

You're right, sorry, I misread your misspelling.

To jump into the Shakespeare remake debate, can I say these films make my point beautifully. I'm pretty certain nobody watches the Lion King for the perceived intellectual challenge of the story. It's a simple tale, likewise Kiss Me Kate and the various reworkings of Taming of The Shrew are not meant to be disected but are recognised as nothing more than a fluffy love story.

I didn't study any at school which means I neither love it nor hate it, but I feel I've missed something, especially as DH is very well-read.

My kids did it at primary school which amazed me. And they loved it. They had a visiting English teacher (a local author) once a week during years 5 and 6. Somehow he managed to break down a play into manageable chunks, tell them enough of the plot for them to understand, and teach them a whole load of quotes. All the kids (regardless of ability) absolutely adored this lovely man and it was the highlight of the week.

In addition, they had regular visits to the school by the Young Shakespeare Company who put on various plays, each actor playing multiple parts, and had kids joining in. Again, they absolutely loved it. There was always such a buzz at the end of the day when this company had been in - you'd hear the kids (from year 4 upwards) all chatting excitedly to their parents about what they'd seen.

Brilliant. And I'm jealous.

I'd say, then, that it depends how it's introduced. And I imagine it takes a certain amount of skill to present it in a way that's enjoyable and not off-putting. I've noticed lots of abridged Shakespeare for kids of various ages in bookshops. Maybe that's what I should be reading for starters.

Doesn't really make your point, though, does it? Withnail's a Hamlet segment (OMG, is he paralysed in inaction or does he fancy his best mate? Etc.); Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead isn't famously lowbrow.

I admit, it's been a while TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross. The scene is at the end when Paul McGann's character has been cast in a World War II film and Withnail laments his loss. Now Withnail is a pompous fool and the delight on his face as he finds his motivation breaks the scene as he gesticulates and hams his delivery to high heaven. The glee on his face is testiment to the pleasure he is experiencing in honing his misfortune to his art and is utterly inkeeping with Withnail's selfish nature.

Do you see something else?

Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is a modern (1960's) absurdist pay about existentialism. It borrows Shakespeare's characters and is a play within a play. There's no hiding behind tiny bushes or failing to recognise your wife because she's wearing a different hat, so it's entirely a different beast to Shakespeare's comedies.

Returning to Withnail. His sorrow is for himself. Though, no doubt, he'll miss Paul McGann's character, ultimately what matters to Withnail is Withnail (remember he pimped his friend to his randy uncle earlier in the film for his own benefit). Withnail is self obsessed and ridiculous, that's the point.

Do you know how weird it sounds when you give the wiki blurb about something someone else has just mentioned, sleep?

I know what R&G is. That's why I mentioned it. I also know the Lion King is a different beast (ho ho ho) to Shakespeare's tragedies, but I imagine you know that too.

Taught in the context of why people still enjoy his work, or the history he covered, or the expressions that date from his plays- yes I think it should be.