Forums → The Tavern → Should Shakespeare be taught in high school?
| 22 | 4865 |
It is really necessary for us to read plays in the 1500's? My class is halfway through reading Macbeth and I have to say, it is incredibly boring. For one, you don't even know half the stuff they're saying. Even if you read it over a couple times, it's still confusing what's going on. We read it as a class and everyone stutters which is so annoying. I think it would be better to read a good novel and analyze it rather than a Shakespeare play. Thoughts?
- 22 Replies
How do you know this is true for 100% of those studying it?
killersup thinks that he was trying to say that not enough people need it in life.some do.but prolly not enough to make it wirth while.just killersup's guess
Shakespeare should really be kicked off in middle school. Shakespeare is easy to read! Just look at the little notes explaining his pop culture allusions and move a few adverbs around in your head and it's suddenly like elementary level reading. The little themey things Shakespeare tosses into his plays are pretty low-hanging fruit but offer a lot of insight and a lot of figurative content to analyze, so they're fantastic introductions on how to do a good job analyzing literature and reading like an English teacher (which is so much more fun than reading like a boring sheeole.
*(which is so much more fun than reading like like a boring sheeple).
Shakespeare should really be kicked off in middle school. Shakespeare is easy to read!
ikr. Most of the stories and themes have been retold in some relatable way, mostly in movies. With sparknotes and other guides, it shouldn't be a problem at all.
ikr. Most of the stories and themes have been retold in some relatable way, mostly in movies. With sparknotes and other guides, it shouldn't be a problem at all.
That's missing the point. Much of Shakespeare might be easy for the tiny minority, but for the rest, it gets tricky. Not to mention the fact that there's so much more to the text than just understanding it; the historical background, origins of expression, understanding how people led their short brutish lives, etc. You can fill shelves with books on just Hamlet, to tell me that there's nothing left in Shakespeare is utter bull.
What I feel is missing is that Shakespeare is almost always the sole Renaissance figure to be analyzed; which makes for a skewed view of literary history. Why not introduce other writers for instance, and then compare them? Widen the spectrum!
What I feel is missing is that Shakespeare is almost always the sole Renaissance figure to be analyzed; which makes for a skewed view of literary history. Why not introduce other writers for instance, and then compare them? Widen the spectrum!
To be fair, I spent a whole year of English Literature A-Level comparing Shakespeare's 'Twelfth Night', Jane Austen's 'Pride and Prejudice' and Ian McEwan's 'Enduring Love' for a 4 page essay and exam. Then when we studied poems, alongside Shakespeare's sonnets we brought in Chaucer, Tennyson, Byron and some modern (1950's +) poetry.
Admittedly we didn't study Renaissance as a topic, we studied Romance through the Ages which is why so many Romantic poets were covered, but we still compared Shakespeare to some other poets and authors within a century before and after his life.
Ah, P&P, I must be the first guy I know in real life who actually liked the book. Sadly, that reflects my dull and cold social approach. Stiff upper lip and all that nonsense.
If you really wanted cheeky love poetry, try John Donne! Secular love imagery in his holy sonnets, and religious imagery in his secular love poetry; paradoxical mix ups have never been so subtly sexually charged and delightful.
Literature is so broad, vast, and unceasing, it's simply amazing. And Shakespeare counts highly amongst the first rate masters of the English writers.
You must be logged in to post a reply!