Why make kids read Shakespeare?

[Big Bend]

I'm sure most of us have read some of the classic works of William Shakespeare in high school & college. I know I had to, and I thought it was a waste of time. Now my son is in HS and he is getting assignments to read them and write reports.

So what ya'll think, does reading Shakespeare really help prepare our kids to be successful in today's world? That old English is a pain to read. I think the student's time could be better spent.

L8r.. BB

[anisotropy]

So because something is difficult for you, then it is not worthwhile? What would you have him spend his time on? This is more of a "Shakespeare is hard" whine rather than an argument against it.

As for why it would be beneficial, there are any number of reasons. Mostly, I tend to think of it simply as exposure to culture, to good writing and as an examination of literature. Well written literature can lead to great discussions of life, death, society, humanity, social interaction, etc. Becoming a well rounded (educationally speaking) person sounds like a pretty decent goal of a HS education.

[justscott]

Im not an ARTS guy myself, but come on exposing your child to this can't be bad. Maybe this is something he would enjoy and lead him to be an author etc..

[Subfallen]

I don't get it---what would you rather be reading? Anyone who doesn't enjoy reading WS doesn't enjoy great literature, so what does it matter if it's Shakespeare or Phillip Roth that's assigned?

[Siegmund]

I am curious, as long as we're on the subject, as to how OP thinks high school English time is best spent.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it---what would you rather be reading? Anyone who doesn't enjoy reading WS doesn't enjoy great literature, so what does it matter if it's Shakespeare or Phillip Roth that's assigned?

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem is that WS is way overrepresented. In the high school I went to, I probably only required read a dozen books/plays or so in all of high school. of those dozen about 6 were WS.

that seems absolutely stupid to me. of all the authors in the world, half the time should be dedicated to just one?

on a kind of related note, i am a big believer than whatever is rated number 1 in some category is almost always overrated by the public. WS is a great example imo. he may be the best writer ever in the history of the world, however, the qualitative difference between him and the second or third best writer the world isn't that huge. and as such, he shouldn't monopolize lit classes in high school.

[MrMon]

I managed to dodge most WS in my high school and college education, but I understand why he's studied as much as he is. Two reasons, cultural and linguistic. A well rounded person should know about WS's major plays, they're referenced all the time in other works and in everyday life. It makes understanding those works much easier. (To pull in another thread, this is also an argument to teach the Bible, and there's a good case for that, as long as you avoid the religious problems.) And from a linguistic standpoint, Shakespeare invented or used more words and phrases first than anybody else. He's practically invented modern English, so if you're going to study any writer of English, it's going to be him.

I'd much rather see kids learning Shakespeare than some trendy PC modern writer of questionable long-term talent.

[jogger08152]

Yes.
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]The references are terrific: "methinks the lady doth protest to much", "wearing his heart on his sleeve", "blood on his hands", etc. Learning where your native idioms come from is the cat's meow. So to speak.
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]There's a reasonable chance he'll enjoy it; Much Ado About Nothing is [censored] funny.
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]It will almost certainly expand his vocabulary (and with it, his ability to think); fighting through difficult language and archaic constructions certainly won't hurt his cognitive abilities either.
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]Both critical analysis and writing are damned useful skills, well worth encouraging, and Shakespeare's an (at least) adequate vehicle for this.
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]A lot of his peers will either skim or ignore this stuff. There's worse things than being the best read student in the class.
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]There's also something to be said for reading arguably the best literature ever written in your native language. (Imagine un etudiant francais not reading Dumas or a Russian skipping Dostoevsky.)

As far as finding better uses for his time, build a bonfire out of all the televisions and video game consoles in the house; if you guys have already done this, there's a chance he's using his time well. Otherwise, Shakespeare.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
My problem is that WS is way overrepresented. In the high school I went to, I probably only required read a dozen books/plays or so in all of high school. of those dozen about 6 were WS.

that seems absolutely stupid to me. of all the authors in the world, half the time should be dedicated to just one?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the reading volume should be increased (conservatively) about seventeen-fold.

[FortunaMaximus]

A cliche of a reference, maybe, but:

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die: to sleep.

If this is not a statement of being human, what is?

Although I agree that to enforce it as an English curriculum without giving students the depth of the material by allowing them to set the scenes in mind or on stage takes away from it...

It's not as if there aren't sufficient resources to teach Shakespeare in this age. Hollywood's produced several capable films, and the contemporary ones do just fine. Purists may well differ though, but the material is fit to be re-interpreted anyway, even if that was not the original intent.

I'm biased though. I'm a fan, and never have really looked at how they taught it in schools as relevant. It could be improved.

But to take Shakespeare away from a high school student's curriculum? No Midsummer Night's Dream? Romeo and Juliet? Hamlet?

It's not like the departments demand that every page of the material be learned. Nor the sonnets.

Perhaps it is not for every student. Maybe some are better off learning how to construct a sentence correctly rather than trying to appreciate literature. But what you find going through his ouevre is that there is very little in the human condition that he doesn't cover, and it entertains.