The new Secondary School curriculum is being planned and a few subjects have been made 'untouchable', therefore mandatory to be taught. Included are English, Maths and all the usual sensible subjects that we use pretty much everyday of our lives but i can never understand the obsession with Shakespeare.
Why should Shakespeare be made untouchable? I read Shakespeare at School and apart from the hours spent sitting in English Lit, i have never used Shakespeare once since i left school apart from throwing out the occasional quote to sound smart alecky.
There are much better authors with stories more relavant to today but we stick with the same old boring beardy bloke from Stratford Upon Avon.
Forsooth, what through yonder window breaks..ti's my works of Shakespeare book.
17 comments:
I find reading Shakey to be extremely dreary, yet watching one of the plays is always fun. It's meant to be on the stage, not read out of a text. My daughter's class did a parody of MacBeth, which was farooking hilarious. (Can we say farooking here?)
If you think Willy Shakes is dreary, try Chaucer.
Although he was quite bawdy.
http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/chaucerquot.htm
Shite, wrong link (although that one is of interste):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miller%27s_Tale
Yeah I agree, Lucy! It must frustrate you so much!
Although I did enjoy shakespeare, filling the literary void in the curriculum was what I did in my own time,sadly. And HELL yes, there are FAR more relevent poets/authors for today. I simply don't follow the schooing system in Australia anymore because of my experiences. It wasn't fulfilling enough in any sense, so I have decided to home school + tutors(for the stuff I can't do) for my son.
Also, its then my choice who he associates with as bullying and behavoural probs are rife, as you would well be aware!
I'm keen to hear what your take is on this!
Zoe xxx
p.s. Love your new blog, are you enjoying it? :~)
Shakespeare wrote about love, betrayal, murder, innocent mishaps, mistaken identities, lust, loyalty, mystery, and sex. Please explain to me how these subjects are no longer "relevant" to today. You can't. It's just much easier to understand a modern author that writes like you talk.
Well, anyone can read a modern author that writres like you talk. Where is the educational value of it? Perhaps we should clear all that old crap by Da Vinci and rembrandt and Monet out of the Louvre to make room for modern paintings that are more "relevant" to odern viewers? Maybe a painting of soup can, for instance?
This argument reminds me of the kids I hear around who have no idea about any movie, song, or news event before they were 5 years old, and justify their ignorance by saying "That's before my time." You know the ones, they act like seeing something in black and white is somehow painful. A movie, like King Kong or Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, can't be at al palateable unless it's redone in color and "brought up to date" with a few fart jokes. I always say the same thing- The people of the world didn't just start doing things worthwhile to celebrate your auspicious arrival on Earth. Learn some history, or be dumb enough to always think that old things are new.
That said, I see nothing at all wrong with teaching kids to read old literature, especialy stuff as beautifully written as ol' Willy's stuff. Teach them to interpret the words with modern meaning, and show that human concerns are largely the same now as they were centuries ago. Just because there were no computers or f-bombs in his stories, that doesn't mean that they have nothing to offer a modern reader and should be tucked away and forgotten.
Zoe - One of my relatives was home taught and he did surpass the school educated children but he did express a concern that he thought he missed out on the social side of school. Academically it seems like a good move but socially, i can see a drawback.
Joe - We really are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this one. If we cannot find a more relavant author in the 400 years since Shakey hung up his quill, then we are in a sorry state of affairs.
George Orwell was a better author who wrote better stories which resonate today and would be far more informative than tales of medievil royalty.
I am not saying Shakespeare should be tucked away and forgotten, i am saying that if teaching literature is to be continued, there are better authors who are more relevant, to dedicate such time and energy to.
Gee, I take a bit of a breather and you have run off with another site (that's blogger adultery by the way) and I am cut off the links list too (sniffle!)
Was it something I didn't say?
How scary uis that. I am just sorting out the links and i noticed that i had Intolerant mispelt all this time on the old site. Then i thought, i wonder if he has given up blogging altogether?
The i come here to check the links thing had loaded properly and your here. Thats just scary!!!
Nahhh that's a God thang!!!
I already adjusted my links to this site. I like the new look way better. Much easier to read.
Welcome to the "Upper" crust of bloggers (LOL)
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "relevant." My point is that humanity and what is important to people really haven't changed much in 400 years, so his plays have as much relevance (relevancy? releventitude? releventness? See-- Will would know!) now as they ever did. What's more relevant, "Romeo and Juliet" or "West Side Story"? "The Tempest" or "Forbidden Planet"?
As for George Orwell...... I won't argue matters of pure opinion, but we'll see how his works fare in 400 years.
Its a date, meet you here in 2407.
I'll be holding a copy of "Much Ado About Nothing." In 3D!
Given that Orwell's visionary work is about to become our reality, I would assume his books will be banned and we'll all be reading either the Bible or the Koran!
Amen!
My point is that humanity and what is important to people really haven't changed much in 400 years
In many important ways, they have changed dramatically. By modern standards, Shakespeare's England was a superstitious, scientifically-backward theocracy, riven by widespread poverty, disease, illiteracy and human rights abuses.
Not that I'm dissing C16th England, mind you--it was the C16th, after all--but clearly things have changed.
Why should Shakespeare be made untouchable?
He shouldn't. There may be very good reasons for including Shakespeare on the English syllabus--for example, the plethora of Shakespearean references throughout popular culture--teaching Shakespeare for the sake of teaching Shakespeare, or because "this is England" are not good reasons.
But Lucy makes a good point. The argument isn't over whether Shakespeare should be included in the English syllabus; it is whether Shakespeare should be a compulsory inclusion.
"Shakespeare's England was a superstitious, scientifically-backward theocracy, riven by widespread poverty, disease, illiteracy and human rights abuses. "
You just described Kansas.
ROFL!
Post a Comment