What would you suggest as an alternative then? Shakespeare is such a massive part of how literature and language evolved in this country, how can you have a full english syllabus without touching upon his work?
There are loads of excellent texts out there written in normal modern day language. Texts that don't require kids to have to use a second book in order to translate the bloody thing line by line. I'm obviously not going to start listing them here.
Sorry, but I fail to subscribe to the view that you can't teach English in schools unless you use Shakespeare.
His observations on human frailty are as sound and pertinent today as they were all those hundreds of years ago. He captured them better than anyone else which is why he is still so relevant.
Also Rip as its also the day he died.
There are loads of excellent texts out there written in normal modern day language. Texts that don't require kids to have to use a second book in order to translate the bloody thing line by line. I'm obviously not going to start listing them here.
Sorry, but I fail to subscribe to the view that you can't teach English in schools unless you use Shakespeare.
I think Shakespeare is an essential part of a broad and widely ranging curriculum. If you stop teaching it because it's 'difficult' then it becomes perceived as even more difficult than it is (which isn't difficult at all, if you see it performed). If you only teach modern texts, or modern language which doesn't stretch pupils, then you're missing out a huge chunk of our common heritage and language. So many other, later texts contain references to Shakespeare, or plots linked to Shakespeare, or language and idiom and phrases quoted from Shakespeare, that the grounding in the absolute classic of our language is important, in my opinion. I'm not suggesting children are force fed a diet of pure Shakespeare and nothing else, but it needs to be included, as do all the modern texts and WW1 poetry, Chaucer, and everything else in between.
You wouldn't take WW2 and the Nazis out of the History curriculum. You wouldn't take erosion out of the geography curriculum. You wouldn't take algebra out of the maths curriculum. All of those things could seem difficult or dull or irrelevant to some people, or if they're taught badly, but they're all part of what makes a broadly educated adult.
There are loads of excellent texts out there written in normal modern day language. Texts that don't require kids to have to use a second book in order to translate the bloody thing line by line. I'm obviously not going to start listing them here.
Sorry, but I fail to subscribe to the view that you can't teach English in schools unless you use Shakespeare.
Shakespeare is really not difficult to understand. It's still English. For instance, here is the prologue to romeo and juliet:
Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
Do with their death bury their parents' strife.
The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love,
And the continuance of their parents' rage,
Which, but their children's end, nought could remove,
Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage;
The which if you with patient ears attend,
What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.
Not really all that difficult to follow.
Plus, I didn't say you can't teach english without Shakespeare and of course other texts need to be covered. However, to do so would be missing something as important as trig is to maths or the world wars to history.
Shakespeare is really not difficult to understand.
I haven't read any of it for years, but my 15 year-old self would beg to differ with you on that one. I remember for GCSE spending hours trawling through the shite that is Macbeth, with a copy of York Notes open next to me on the desk, annotating almost every single bloody line of it in pencil. By the end of the two years we studied the damn thing for, my book was literally covered in pencil notes.
I was one of the brighter students of my class by the way. I ended up getting an A* for English Literature, but nothing I took from Shakespeare has benefited my life, except for being able to answer the odd pub quiz question here and there.
And as for Macbeth. What a weak and crappy ending. Apparently, if you're born by Caesarian, you haven't been "born of woman". Utter shite.
I haven't read any of it for years, but my 15 year-old self would beg to differ with you on that one. I remember for GCSE spending hours trawling through the shite that is Macbeth...
Shite? What a great play that is. I can still recite entire speeches from it, that I learned just for fun. What's not to like? It has witches, ghosts, daggers of the mind...
Then again, I do wonder if my enthusiasm might have been enhanced by our school trip to the cinema to watch Polanski's version. The importance of the child actor who played Fleance would only become apparent many years later, but we were certainly captivated by the sight of a sleepwalking naked lady Macbeth. Indeed, the entire audience of 14-year-olds collapsed in fits of giggles when her not insubstantial assets were greeted on-screen by the Doctor with the words "What a size they are!"
Only on closer study of the text did it become apparent that what he was actually saying was "What a sigh is there!"...
Shite? What a great play that is. I can still recite entire speeches from it, that I learned just for fun. What's not to like? It has witches, ghosts, daggers of the mind...
Then again, I do wonder if my enthusiasm might have been enhanced by our school trip to the cinema to watch Polanski's version. The importance of the child actor who played Fleance would only become apparent many years later, but we were certainly captivated by the sight of a sleepwalking naked lady Macbeth. Indeed, the entire audience of 14-year-olds collapsed in fits of giggles when her not insubstantial assets were greeted on-screen by the Doctor with the words "What a size they are!"
Only on closer study of the text did it become apparent that what he was actually saying was "What a sigh is there!"...
Hear hear. Saw the Polanski film while studying Macbeth for A-level, and recently picked up a DVD. It still stands up well against the various filmed and live versions I've seen since, although I did like Jane Horrocks' Lady M. But the Third Ear Band soundtrack hasn't lasted as well.
I haven't read any of it for years, but my 15 year-old self would beg to differ with you on that one. I remember for GCSE spending hours trawling through the shite that is Macbeth, with a copy of York Notes open next to me on the desk, annotating almost every single bloody line of it in pencil. By the end of the two years we studied the damn thing for, my book was literally covered in pencil notes.
I was one of the brighter students of my class by the way. I ended up getting an A* for English Literature, but nothing I took from Shakespeare has benefited my life, except for being able to answer the odd pub quiz question here and there.
And as for Macbeth. What a weak and crappy ending. Apparently, if you're born by Caesarian, you haven't been "born of woman". Utter shite.
Macduff wasn't delivered in a natural birth which is what the witches meant by born of a woman. But they deliberately couched it in language that would make Macbeth believe he was invincible and thus continue his murderous reign. The line isn't 'born of woman' but 'of woman born'. Since his mother wasn't actually involved in the birth and could even possibly have been dead, he wasn't 'of woman born' he was 'of male doctors operating on his mother born'. It's splitting hairs but then that's the point.
Birnam Wood didn't actually move towards Dunsinane either, it only appeared that way. The witches didn't exactly have a great track record of telling Macbeth the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Shakespeare is really not difficult to understand. It's still English. For instance, here is the prologue to romeo and juliet:
Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
Do with their death bury their parents' strife.
The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love,
And the continuance of their parents' rage,
Which, but their children's end, nought could remove,
Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage;
The which if you with patient ears attend,
What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.
Not really all that difficult to follow.
Plus, I didn't say you can't teach english without Shakespeare and of course other texts need to be covered. However, to do so would be missing something as important as trig is to maths or the world wars to history.
Nice.
I know Romeo & Juliet is not regarded as one of the better plays but I've always had a soft spot for it and it is one of the most accessible. I quite liked Baz Lurman's version. He kept a lot of Shakespeare's dialogue and a modern audience understood it just fine.
I'm really looking forward to the dvd release of the RSC Richard II that was in cinemas earlier this year. It was a fantastic production - I went into it not knowing the first thing about the play, and knowing practically nothing about the actual historical events, but the plot was crystal clear, and there were lots of parallels with modern politics too, it seemed very relevant.
I dont like the idea of wishng a happy birthday to a corpse of hundreds of years but yes Shakespeares works and legacy stands up there with a few others for centuries
These old masters mastered it (literature/philosophy/psychology and a few other disciplines) and since then theres not been alot new under the sun...except for "science"
Dont like his holograph winking at me in my switch card though...ok that was a few years ago
I'm really looking forward to the dvd release of the RSC Richard II that was in cinemas earlier this year. It was a fantastic production - I went into it not knowing the first thing about the play, and knowing practically nothing about the actual historical events, but the plot was crystal clear, and there were lots of parallels with modern politics too, it seemed very relevant.
Richard II is one of my favourite plays (although I have been known to say that about other plays depending on what I've recently read or watched!). I saw the Hollow Crown version last year and Ben Wishaw was incredible in the part as was Derek Jacobi many moons ago.
It's been 450 years to the day (there or thereabouts, at least) since William Shakespeare was born and I thought I'd mark the occasion by initiating a little discussion on him.
Very much the Ben Elton of his times (light social commentary with a heap of populist theatre- it's We Will Rock You with bigger ruffs), I've often wondered why, of the hundreds of playwrights littered across our history, is Shakespeare the go-to guy for all classic theatre.
Do you have a favourite piece by him, and do you think any of the myriad of urban myths about him are true (he was involved in a sexual affair with Queen Elizabeth I, he was engaged in a sexual affair with a younger male suitor, he didn't actually write any of his plays)?
The Globe in London are having a week of celebrations for him (with tickets to outside performances being reduced to 450 pence ) and Stratford has gone more Shakespeare crazy than ever (Morris Dancers in tights you say? I'm sold!)
Finally, do you think Shakespeare should still be such an institution in our schools- or is it time to phase him out in favour of more contemporary authors?
I think theres a lot of songwriters out there that could give him a run for his money.
Did he compose songs himself?
I've seen productions of all of Shakespeare's plays except Timon of Athens and Henry VIII, many of them multiple times and absolutely love them. I find some of the descriptions on this thread unbelievable - to describe Shakespeare as 'boring' or 'utter shite' is really just showing your ignorance. I understand that not everyone will like or enjoy the plays, but no educated person can deny their importance or standing in English literaure. The fact that they can be staged in so many ways and in any era and still retain their relevance shows how Shakespeare had an unequalled understanding of human nature.
By the way - if you like Shakespeare and want to see all of the plays, try to catch the Reduced Shakespeare Company's 'Complete works of Shakespeare (abridged)' - it really is a joy!
I can appreciate his talent, but there's no doubt that both reading and watching Shakespeare can be hard work - and I understand why a lot of people feel scarred for life after studying his work in school.
I found it much easier to appreciate Shakespeare as an adult, but I still wouldn't watch one of his plays out of choice. That has more to do with the horrible, hammy overacting that his plays demand more than anything else.
Comments
There are loads of excellent texts out there written in normal modern day language. Texts that don't require kids to have to use a second book in order to translate the bloody thing line by line. I'm obviously not going to start listing them here.
Sorry, but I fail to subscribe to the view that you can't teach English in schools unless you use Shakespeare.
Also Rip as its also the day he died.
I think Shakespeare is an essential part of a broad and widely ranging curriculum. If you stop teaching it because it's 'difficult' then it becomes perceived as even more difficult than it is (which isn't difficult at all, if you see it performed). If you only teach modern texts, or modern language which doesn't stretch pupils, then you're missing out a huge chunk of our common heritage and language. So many other, later texts contain references to Shakespeare, or plots linked to Shakespeare, or language and idiom and phrases quoted from Shakespeare, that the grounding in the absolute classic of our language is important, in my opinion. I'm not suggesting children are force fed a diet of pure Shakespeare and nothing else, but it needs to be included, as do all the modern texts and WW1 poetry, Chaucer, and everything else in between.
You wouldn't take WW2 and the Nazis out of the History curriculum. You wouldn't take erosion out of the geography curriculum. You wouldn't take algebra out of the maths curriculum. All of those things could seem difficult or dull or irrelevant to some people, or if they're taught badly, but they're all part of what makes a broadly educated adult.
Shakespeare is really not difficult to understand. It's still English. For instance, here is the prologue to romeo and juliet:
Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
Do with their death bury their parents' strife.
The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love,
And the continuance of their parents' rage,
Which, but their children's end, nought could remove,
Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage;
The which if you with patient ears attend,
What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.
Not really all that difficult to follow.
Plus, I didn't say you can't teach english without Shakespeare and of course other texts need to be covered. However, to do so would be missing something as important as trig is to maths or the world wars to history.
I haven't read any of it for years, but my 15 year-old self would beg to differ with you on that one. I remember for GCSE spending hours trawling through the shite that is Macbeth, with a copy of York Notes open next to me on the desk, annotating almost every single bloody line of it in pencil. By the end of the two years we studied the damn thing for, my book was literally covered in pencil notes.
I was one of the brighter students of my class by the way. I ended up getting an A* for English Literature, but nothing I took from Shakespeare has benefited my life, except for being able to answer the odd pub quiz question here and there.
And as for Macbeth. What a weak and crappy ending. Apparently, if you're born by Caesarian, you haven't been "born of woman". Utter shite.
Then again, I do wonder if my enthusiasm might have been enhanced by our school trip to the cinema to watch Polanski's version. The importance of the child actor who played Fleance would only become apparent many years later, but we were certainly captivated by the sight of a sleepwalking naked lady Macbeth. Indeed, the entire audience of 14-year-olds collapsed in fits of giggles when her not insubstantial assets were greeted on-screen by the Doctor with the words "What a size they are!"
Only on closer study of the text did it become apparent that what he was actually saying was "What a sigh is there!"...
Hear hear. Saw the Polanski film while studying Macbeth for A-level, and recently picked up a DVD. It still stands up well against the various filmed and live versions I've seen since, although I did like Jane Horrocks' Lady M. But the Third Ear Band soundtrack hasn't lasted as well.
Macduff wasn't delivered in a natural birth which is what the witches meant by born of a woman. But they deliberately couched it in language that would make Macbeth believe he was invincible and thus continue his murderous reign. The line isn't 'born of woman' but 'of woman born'. Since his mother wasn't actually involved in the birth and could even possibly have been dead, he wasn't 'of woman born' he was 'of male doctors operating on his mother born'. It's splitting hairs but then that's the point.
Birnam Wood didn't actually move towards Dunsinane either, it only appeared that way. The witches didn't exactly have a great track record of telling Macbeth the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Nice.
I know Romeo & Juliet is not regarded as one of the better plays but I've always had a soft spot for it and it is one of the most accessible. I quite liked Baz Lurman's version. He kept a lot of Shakespeare's dialogue and a modern audience understood it just fine.
These old masters mastered it (literature/philosophy/psychology and a few other disciplines) and since then theres not been alot new under the sun...except for "science"
Dont like his holograph winking at me in my switch card though...ok that was a few years ago
Richard II is one of my favourite plays (although I have been known to say that about other plays depending on what I've recently read or watched!). I saw the Hollow Crown version last year and Ben Wishaw was incredible in the part as was Derek Jacobi many moons ago.
I think theres a lot of songwriters out there that could give him a run for his money.
Did he compose songs himself?
Ive just went on t'internet...he did.
Clearly an extremely talented guy.
By the way - if you like Shakespeare and want to see all of the plays, try to catch the Reduced Shakespeare Company's 'Complete works of Shakespeare (abridged)' - it really is a joy!
I found it much easier to appreciate Shakespeare as an adult, but I still wouldn't watch one of his plays out of choice. That has more to do with the horrible, hammy overacting that his plays demand more than anything else.