A Shakespearean tragedy

Post Reply New Topic

I was hopelessly lost when I had to study Shakespeare at school.

I barely passed English at school, while being top in science, maths and FOREIGN languages (go figure )
- It made about as much sense to me as wood-shop/woodwork

Who else was lost in space when it came to Shakespeare and the other older works of English Literature

Shakespeare should be seen and heard, not read, and requires a better understanding of the period and vocabulary than is generally present in schoolchildren. It should not be taught in schools unless passed through a modernising filter (like Baz Lurhmann.)

I also had a really hard time, with Shakespere. I don't even think that I've spelled that right. The bottom line is that, school students should not be taught the writings of an authour, that the average person can't spell.

I like his works. It needs to be read with a teacher's guidance though. A teacher can explain each page after they read it.

That is how I ended up 'learning' the novels by other classic authors.

I bought the 'teaching/study' guides', which were just synopses in modern English. I then memorized passages that linked with important themes.

@Cockney Rebel: 'The bottom line is that, school students should not be taught the writings of an authour, that the average person can't spell'. (glorious)

@Ambivalence: 'It should not be taught in schools unless passed through a modernising filter' (to give Autistics at least a fighting chance)

Well, I'm a big fan of the Bard but I know why, I was taught by a man who was in love with the subject. Picture the scene, first form English and Mr Guinne tells us we're going to study a book that contains sword fights, poisonings, ghosts, witches and people going mad, then he hands out copies of Macbeth. We soaked it in like a sponge and by the second form we were mostly die-hard Shakespeare fans, then they turned up the heat and we all went to see Laurence Olivier at the RSC in Hamlet.

I saw a similar effect years later. Mel Gibson played Hamlet in a movie version and I went to see it. In front of me were four young girls and it was obvious by their conversation that the only reason they were there was to see Mel. By the end of the movie they were spellbound.

Shakespeare done right is a wonderful thing.

Vanilla_Slice

Thanks for sharing that Vanilla.

Storytellers are one of the wonders of our species.

I had a history teacher who was a gifted story teller.

I took no notes while he spoke during our history class and then in the evening would write out my version of his words with total recall.

I actually used to see pictures in my head like a movie when I was listening to this teacher (and I absolutely suck as an auditory processor)

My geography teacher was the same.

Their classes were an absolute joy and one of the few happy memories I have of school.

Thanks again for reminding me of some of the good times.

I cannot disagree strongly enough.

No particular knowledge of the period is required, the stories are compelling independent of their time, which is why Shakespeare can so successfully be performed in any period. (viz. Sir Ian McKellan's Richard III for one). Historical context can make better sense of the histories, certainly, and some of the, "problem plays," (especially Henry VIII), but it is not a necessary precondition to study, especially of the tragedies and the comedies.

I have no particular objection to the "modernizing filter," but I think that it should come after study of the original rather than in place of it. Once you have studied the original, then a new treatment can demonstrate the strength of the text. Teaching the new treatment first creates the implication that the new treatment is necessary to make Shakespeare accessible.

Verse has a place in modern literature and in the cultural expression of language. It is not incidental to our culture, but central to it. All around us we hear verse: the Opening Ceremonies of the 2010 Winter Olympics featured a slam poet; street performers improvise verse through the medium of rap. Song continues to rely on the rhythmic assembly of language as it has for millenia.

Even on the dramatic stage, today, verse continues to hold its place. Tony Harrison has made his career as a poet in the 20th and 21st centuries, and has demonstrated the strength of poetry in dramatic presentation. (I am currently performing in the world premiere if his new adaptation of Moliere's The Misanthrope set in Washington, DC in 2006).

Shakespeare is over-rated IMO, I hate Shakespeare language and I hate all his plays that I know of.

English Literature in general, however, is something I'm good at, along with English Language.

For my English Literature GCSE I studied a bunch of poems and Lord of the Flies, all of which I enjoyed.

Last edited by Asp-Z on 03 Jun 2010, 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I enjoyed the sonnets. The full length works were difficult for me, however; even when I understood them, I didn't particularly enjoy them. I don't enjoy reading plays in general though, so there's that. I did my presentation on Hamlet entirely by notes and bringing in cake (bribery) and passed without reading a bit of my assigned section.

I agree. The best way to crack Shakespeare is to WATCH the play first (many are on netflix). Then tackle the text with some NO FEAR SHAKESPEARE on the side.

That's true. I love the 1996 version of Romeo and Juliet, but I kind of wish I'd read the original text before I saw the movie, because there are a lot of changes (Romeo never kills Paris in the movie. Also, they have guns and cars and everything), so I automatically associate events in the story with how they happen in the movie, even though I've read the play now and I am aware of the differences.

I don't struggle with reading Shakespeare now. When I first saw the movie in class, I had to keep asking my friend what was going on (she understood because she'd seen the movie so many times), but I soon got used to it, and now I've seen it so many times I can easily understand the old-fashioned language. Actually, sometimes I accidentally use archaic language in normal conversation, LOL.

I could have been clearer: my specific objection is to Shakspar being "taught" by shoving the texts of his plays directly under the noses of twelve year old children, instead of presenting them with a film (or taking them to see it live) where the language can be interpreted from the context. It ain't so much that the stories are unfamiliar, but the words they're told in.



I see what you mean, but it depends on the strength of the adaptation, and I don't think the presence of modern treatments is going to do the Bard any harm.



I agree. Though the majority is the same awful doggerel as ever. Expressing something in verse does not confer quality!

As surely I should  relate my shame,
Nothing of note  write could I never!

Found it easy enough.

Just boring people stories to me.