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.

[hmkpoker]

Let me tell you all about an activity that I enjoy doing. It is called poi spinning.. It is a form of dance/juggling activity that began in New Zealand, and later became popular in America with the advent of rave culture, and is often done with glowsticks or torches. I have been doing it for five years now, and am quite good at it. It is a lot of fun, a great form of exercise, a wonderful social activity. It also helps develop coordination and ambidexterity. It's an all-around fun thing to do. My life is much better because of it.

Does this justify forcing every teenager in America to learn how to spin poi? Of course not. What I enjoy doing is not what everyone else enjoys doing.

All of the responses in this thread have been about the merits of learning Shakespeare. That's not the point. There are merits to reading Tolstoy too. Would you like it if a court decision suddently required you to read <u>War and Peace</u> and write a ten page paper on it? No, you wouldn't. Because there are a lot of other things you would prefer to do with your time. And there are a lot of other things that teenagers would rather do with their time rather than be forced to read 400 year old manuscripts that have nothing to do with the world today.

And lastly, reading Shakespeare is not an enjoyable activity. It's not even how Shakespeare is supposed to be experienced! The man wrote plays, not books. You're supposed to watch Shakespeare performed live. Reading Shakespeare is like printing out the script for <u>The Godfather</u>, telling someone to read this, and then wondering why they didn't enjoy spending a week of their time being bored with lines that Al Pacino was supposed to deliver. Schools force kids to read Shakespeare because, frankly, it wastes a lot of time. Watching a Shakespearean play is quick (2-3 hours), and often quite enjoyable. Yet for some reason schools insist on having the kids sit down and pick apart every piece of this old English nonsense for weeks on end, and don't even get to experience the damn play.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
And lastly, reading Shakespeare is not an enjoyable activity. It's not even how Shakespeare is supposed to be experienced! The man wrote plays, not books. You're supposed to watch Shakespeare performed live. Reading Shakespeare is like printing out the script for The Godfather, telling someone to read this, and then wondering why they didn't enjoy spending a week of their time being bored with lines that Al Pacino was supposed to deliver. Schools force kids to read Shakespeare because, frankly, it wastes a lot of time. Watching a Shakespearean play is quick (2-3 hours), and often quite enjoyable. Yet for some reason schools insist on having the kids sit down and pick apart every piece of this old English nonsense for weeks on end, [b]and don't even get to experience the damn play.[/B}

[/ QUOTE ]

Too true! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[nepenthe]

[ QUOTE ]
And there are a lot of other things that teenagers would rather do with their time rather than be forced to read 400 year old manuscripts that have nothing to do with the world today.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would surmise your argument about what many teenagers would "rather do with their time" basically militates against ALL forms of education. Furthermore, the last part of your sentence is clearly and literally false.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And there are a lot of other things that teenagers would rather do with their time rather than be forced to read 400 year old manuscripts that have nothing to do with the world today.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would surmise your argument about what many teenagers would "rather do with their time" basically militates against ALL forms of education.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. Human beings are in a constant state of learning, and teenagers are no exception. They usually end up with a greater mastery of power chords, skateboard tricks and ways of getting their parents to lend them the car/money than they do with academics. It's very similar to how a young, underqualified twenty-something who's new to the real world will quickly become educated in home economics, job interviewing and employee skills; they learn skills that are appropriate to their positions in life.

The reason that one would be quick to claim that teenagers would not learn anything valuable absent compulsory education is because, in the world they live in today, teenagers have very little freedom and very little responsibility (a lifestyle that is largely created by compulsory schooling). So naturally, they spend their time learning how to do things that are fun and cheap, like pulling ollies and rolling joints.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, the last part of your sentence is clearly and literally false.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you take it that literally, then yes. The mere fact that we know of Shakespeare's existence means that there is a connection between his work and the modern world. That being said, my statement was meant to be qualitative, not axiomatic. I think it is very safe to say that Shakespeare is less relevent today than Eminem. Take away Shakespeare as an academic requirement, and not many kids are going to be interested in his works. Nor would they have any reason to be. They would probably be more interested in Nine Inch Nails, Stephen King, and M. Night Shyamalan, and by virtue of their interests in these artists, they would go on to "master" them, just like a seventeenth century theatergoer "mastered" Shakespeare. Is this bad? I don't see why.

[nepenthe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And there are a lot of other things that teenagers would rather do with their time rather than be forced to read 400 year old manuscripts that have nothing to do with the world today.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would surmise your argument about what many teenagers would "rather do with their time" basically militates against ALL forms of education.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. Human beings are in a constant state of learning, and teenagers are no exception. They usually end up with a greater mastery of power chords, skateboard tricks and ways of getting their parents to lend them the car/money than they do with academics. It's very similar to how a young, underqualified twenty-something who's new to the real world will quickly become educated in home economics, job interviewing and employee skills; they learn skills that are appropriate to their positions in life.

The reason that one would be quick to claim that teenagers would not learn anything valuable absent compulsory education is because, in the world they live in today, teenagers have very little freedom and very little responsibility (a lifestyle that is largely created by compulsory schooling). So naturally, they spend their time learning how to do things that are fun and cheap, like pulling ollies and rolling joints.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, the last part of your sentence is clearly and literally false.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you take it that literally, then yes. The mere fact that we know of Shakespeare's existence means that there is a connection between his work and the modern world. That being said, my statement was meant to be qualitative, not axiomatic. I think it is very safe to say that Shakespeare is less relevent today than Eminem. Take away Shakespeare as an academic requirement, and not many kids are going to be interested in his works. Nor would they have any reason to be. They would probably be more interested in Nine Inch Nails, Stephen King, and M. Night Shyamalan, and by virtue of their interests in these artists, they would go on to "master" them, just like a seventeenth century theatergoer "mastered" Shakespeare. Is this bad? I don't see why.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was alluding to "education" above as in that taught in schools. Of course anything can be an educational experience.

As for your statement, "I think it is very safe to say that Shakespeare is less relevent[sic] today than Eminem." I don't think that's very safe at all. I doubt anyone will even remember Eminem in 100 years, and in any case many posters in this thread have already expounded upon how old literature, including WS, is very relevant not just to helping understand today's world but, in many cases, thriving in it. For me, literature has been 1000x more pragmatically useful than, say, looking at a bunch of cells through a microscope. You won't see me slamming biology, though.

As to kids' presumed preference of NIN and Stephen King et. al. and their ability to "master" them, this line of argument could be used in support of free, non-compulsory education for all (although I'd say it's terribly misguided) but not specifically against WS, which is the topic of this thread.

[m_the0ry]

I agree it's a complete waste of time. The model for teaching english was obliterated by grade inflation and ease of attainability with regards to 'english degrees'.

High school and middle school composition teach one thing and one thing only: how to write without communicating. Communication is the crux of effective and impactive writing, and yet if you read most student's work it is nothing more than a regurgitation of what the grader wants to hear and a needless expansion on rhetoric techniques that have absolutely no effect on communication and no relevance to the real world.

I went through high school being incredibly insulted and angered by the 'english' system. In the process of getting my engineering degree I took courses on technical writing. The classes delved into the concepts of audience analysis, organizational skills, proper form and syntax, with a lesser emphasis on how to effectively use tone and style to tailor to the needs of your audience. These are skills that help someone communicate. These are skills that help everyone in their job. These are skills that are applicable.


Memorizing Shakespeare's plot themes, pedantic vocabulary, and dramatic situations are not only absolutely worthless in application but OBSTRUCT communication.

[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..

[Siegmund]

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