To think that Shakespeare is a little intense for Yr 7 English?

[mids2019]

My daughter is studying Romeo and Juliet for Yr 7 English. Am I being unreasonable that this play may have more impact at A level when pupils have greater critical analysis techniques and possibly a greater appreciation for English literature?

I think Shakepeare is a genius of English literature but the language is so dense and tied to contemporary Elizabethian society that I think a Yr 7 pupil could struggle and in some cases actually put pupils off a more gradual approach to literature appreciation.

I also find it difficult explaining to a 12 year old daughter how Juliet (13) is capable of making so such life changing choices such as marriage and ultimately suicide and with the perspective of 21st century society the play does seem remote in experience.

Is the bard best taught at a slightly older age?

This is interesting and timely for me as my kids have just finished their term at their music/drama group where they had Shakespeare and adaptations for their theme this term - the little ones did stuff from The Lion King (and talked about Hamlet and where the sorry had come from) , not sure what the middle group did and DS1's group (11-14) did Taming of the Shrew/Kiss me Kate with a bit of & Juliet thrown in. DS1 (who's just 11 loved it and in particular playing with a whole different sort of language; DS2 (7) loved the stories and was fascinated by how the stories were adapted.

They're doing a Midsummer Night's Dream next term, but with disco songs. Demystifying Shakespeare by starting young and focusing on the stories feels like such a good way in.

@ThanksItHasPockets
I am afraid English was my first language. :(

My 8yo is into Shakespeare. He likes learning soliloquies and watching the famous plays or reading kiddie versions.

My Y7 ds is doing Julius Caesar with a focus on the drama.

It really doesn't matter if a Y7 pupil doesn't 'get' it all. They make a start and that important. R&J is one of the more interesting plays to start with I reckon any of the Henry plays might put you off!!

There's some great adaptations. Hopefully you could take her to see Shakespeare performed. I'm looking into Stratford-on-Avon as my relatives are near there and dc are making a start on Shakespeare.

We she will watch the Baz Luhrman film in school?. Thats great, really enjoyable and accessible. Not sure about age rating.

Also it's not hard to explain to a reasonably intelligent 12yo that people had to grow up a lot quicker in those days because they died a lot younger.

The language is hard at any age. You scratch the surface at a younger age and go deeper as you get older.

Not everyone enjoys English lit but it's my degree subject and I love it.

Apologies, I meant no offence. You have quite a formal writing style which is often characteristic of people who are fluent but not native speakers.

Haha, I’ve taught Shakespeare to nursery kids (lots of fun and games, but some original text there too) you can teach Shakespeare to kids of any age with appropriate and engaging pedagogy (whether you should of course, is another debate…)

@ThanksItHasPockets

What would the career consequences about not having studied Shakepeare be? Would a child's life experience be fundamentally changed by not having an intimate knowledge of one author?

I would argue that by leaving Shakespeare until 6th form they may have opportunities to discover other authors before having the literary maturity to fully appreciate the language of an Elizabethean playwright?

You spend a lot of time thinking about Shakespeare, given that you’re not keen, OP.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks…

Surely the whole point of education is to stretch and broaden the mind with new material and situations, rather than limit it to what they already find easy to understand.

Education is only partly about careers. It is primarily about producing well-rounded citizens who have an understanding of, and a respect for, their national heritage. Compulsory education therefore includes elements of the national literary canon in the same way that it includes quadratic equations and an understanding of the Second World War. What ‘other authors’ will prepare you for Shakespeare? He is unmatched.

@ThanksItHasPockets

It's interesting that Shakepeare didn't have a formal writing style. I think this is the fundamental difference between poetry and prose. Scientists for instance adopt a formal writing style as science needs language that is universally understandable yet poets and writers have the luxury of adopting a more relaxed writing style.

Children for instance are grades on grammar, punctuation and spelling (for SATs for example) and while these are important parts of our language these concepts can be thrown to the side when it comes to creative language.

If a child spelling was as bad as Shakepeare's then today they would be labelled as struggling at primary school.

Shakespeare wrote largely in iambic pentameter. It doesn’t get much more formal. Very little of his writing is in prose at all.

He was writing at a time before standardised spelling. There was no ‘bad’ spelling at the time because there was no established correct form.

Have you ever actually studied him, or his period?

There was no standardised spelling in Shakespeare’s day, OP. He was writing before the invention of the printing press.

(I think you might know that, though. I’m smelling a wind-up).

Mind you, I’d better not say that.

Troll-hunting will get me Bard.

@DuncanBiscuits 🤣🤣🤣

@ThanksItHasPockets

I guess the question is is whether Shakespeare should be celebrated as a great English author or an author who wrote for all people for all time? I think Shakespeare a very important of our national heritage and someone we should be rightly proud of. In addition however to a modern class in the UK do we need to present the bard as having universal appeal and not entrenched within one particular nationality or cukture?

@DuncanBiscuits vg.

I am having similar thoughts. It’s all very wide-eyed.

Came here to say this.

I studied Shakespeare from year 7 to GCSE level in the UK and then migrated overseas to finish off my schooling in another English speaking country where Shakespeare was not taught until their equivalent of sixth form. I was much better equipped to understand and enjoy Shakespeare. I think you really do need the exposure early on to be able to get your head around the language.

Well, it might be your question, OP, but it isn’t mine. I don’t think we can expect him to have written for people and times he could never have imagined existing.

I recommend putting Bill Bryson’s book Shakespeare: The World as Stage on your Christmas list. It is short and very accessible, and is an excellent introduction to the period and the works.

We did:

Y7 A Midsummer Night's Dream
Y8 Merchant of Venice and Twelfth Night
Y9 Romeo and Juliet
Y10/11 Macbeth
Y12 Othello
Y13 The Tempest and Hamlet

It never felt inaccessible because it was pitched at the right level. As a grad student I realised just how many rude jokes in Twelfth Night our teacher had sidestepped for the 13 year olds!

I mean if there is a high proportion of children at risk of failing their English GCSE altogether then there are obviously deep rooted issues and that’s likely to affect their enjoyment of and engagement with any text, isn’t it?

@mids2019 I think it's really interesting that Shakepeare was originally written for the masses? Was this rally the case

Literally. The larger part of the audience were the "groundlings", hundreds of ordinary people crammed in the pit of the theatre with standing room only. They paid one penny .

or was it aimed at Elizabethean middle classes (isn't it the case that Shakespearean characters speak differently if they are working class in that society)?

We can assume that as now, labourers and servants did not copy but perfectly understood the different speech and social manners of their masters and employers... and vice versa. Centuries before Shakespeare, Chaucer was exploring the entertainment value of nuances of social class and behaviour. Nothing has changed in British entertainment today.

a general point about classic literature is whether we need to be very careful to contextualize the work as societal views have changed so much? For instance women were held in a very different position in centuries gone by so how do we get children now to relate to for instance Jane Austen?

The reason Jane Austen s writing has endured so long, is that her acerbic take on her society were timeless. Society still faces with the same issues today; how birth, education, money, class, gender are the source of social advantage and disadvantage. Even young readers of JA will very quickly start picking up the clues.

If it helps, the OP is framing the exact question which is the hot topic in Shakespeare Education research just now, they could probably skip the Bryson and be fairly at home with some of the journal papers I’m reading just now ;)

YABU. I studied that in year 7 - 24 years ago!! I remember enjoying it.

I studied this in Y7, yabu.