"There isn't a point to reading Shakespeare"

[Eleni]

My 15yo niece said this to me yesterday. My sister was asking me how now that the school year is nearly done how did I like our first experience with PS. She agreed with me that kids are horrible when they are in large groups, and said that yeah, once they are in school there is not any time to do much of anything after homework, etc, etc.

I was talking about how I see the end result of education in our district in my college classes, because most of my classmates graduated from this district which is one of the top in the country. I told her how several of the kids when asked to read something aloud read worse than my 1st grader, and how they would fall asleep in class and just had this attitude of apathy. I wound up tutoring a few of them so they could pass. This was a class on Ancient Western Civilization.

My niece interjected and said much of what school makes them read is pointless. Her class is reading Romeo and Juliet and she thinks it is stupid and there is no point to Shakespeare, and she does not see why anyone should read it anymore.

 

I was speechless. Literally speechless. Dh was shocked because he has heard my discourse on reading classics and understanding history many times.

My niece is a straight A student who is being honored for academic accomplishment next week. She is a smart girl. I also understand that 15 yo girls won't always be gung ho about things.

 

It just made me sad...because i know there are millions just like her that don't see "the point" and find it to be a waste of time.

Even Donald Trump has a chapter in one of his books about why reading and knowing the classics is so crucial to one's life. :glare:

[Murphy101]

Well I will make my kids read Romeo and Juliet if for no other reason than cultural awareness. We are a very literature heavy household.

 

However, I think the story is stupid and pointless too. I wouldn't ditch all of Shakespeare, but if I never read Romeo and Juliet again, my life will feel no loss whatsoever.

 

Sometimes the kids are right and not all classics are all that great.

 

 

Ducking and running for cover....

[Mama Geek]

There are at least a couple of arguments that I can think of.

 

Things like Shakespeare are like exercise for your mind. Even as a college grad it is a challenge for me to read it. Maybe not as much now as 15 years ago, but it is outside what I am comfortable and have an easy time reading and understanding. I figure that is true for most people today. That in my opinion is a good thing. This is also part of why dh and I usually read from the KJV of the bible to our dd who is less than a year old.

 

Those who are well educated and have a wide range in their knowledge, probably have learned how to think things through. If they have the drive to go along with it, these people are very likely to be successful in anything they do.

 

I didn't value learning at 15 nearly as much as I have in the last 10 years or so. I have learned tons of history, economics, politics, geography, oh yeah and I can't forget the amount of engineering topics I have learned since graduating. :D

[Mama Geek]

Well I will make my kids read Romeo and Juliet if for no other reason than cultural awareness. We are a very literature heavy household.

 

However, I think the story is stupid and pointless too. I wouldn't ditch all of Shakespeare, but if I never read Romeo and Juliet again, my life will feel no loss whatsoever.

 

Sometimes the kids are right and not all classics are all that great.

 

 

Ducking and running for cover....

 

You shouldn't have to duck and run for cover. You have likes and dislikes and that is good. I don't like everything I have read. I tried and tried to read some Hemingway and it just bored me to tears.

[Margo out of lurking]

But there is a point to watching Jersey Shore? Reading People Magazine? Spending countless hours on Facebook, and texting 100+ times a day?

 

Your post is the biggest problem facing the U.S. today. We're raising kids who don't "see the point" in thinking for themselves, or learning how to learn.

 

It's scary, to say the least, and it will be the downfall of our country.

[Murphy101]

You shouldn't have to duck and run for cover. You have likes and dislikes and that is good. I don't like everything I have read. I tried and tried to read some Hemingway and it just bored me to tears.

 

 

Ug. I remember making my English teacher sputter because when she said Hemmingway killed himself, I muttered a bit too loud, "No surprise there. Anyone who has read his stuff sympathizes with the urge.":tongue_smilie:

[elegantlion]

I was thinking about Shakespeare yesterday. We studying a few sonnets this year. We've read Lamb's Shakespeare in earlier years, and we were slated to read a play this year, but never got it it. My son is 13, technically 7th grade.

 

I don't know what normal would be in publc school, but I don't remember even thinking about Shakespeare until high school. High school is too late to expose children to Shakespeare, imo. Wasn't there just another thread about students and teachers balking at Great Books and even classics!

 

No wonder kids are bored and apathetic. In the educational setting, they may never be exposed to these books. Then in high school, wham, let's analyze it. They haven't even been taught to appreciate reading at that level. By 15 they're dealing with hormones, the desire to drive, questions about what you want to be when you grow up, graduation requirements, and NOW you want them to appreciate Shakespeare.

 

I'm sorry about your niece's attitude, I think SHE is missing the point. I'll bet she's watched at least one modern movie that is a Shakespeare adaptation and didn't even realize it.

[Cinder]

I had actually been wondering to myself recently why my ds's high school doesn't have the kids read more Shakespeare. He's in 10th grade and they've done one play so far--Romeo and Juliet. I guess my opinion is skewed by my own high school experience where we read two Shakespeare plays every year--but not R&J. Granted, I was in honors English every year; I don't think the regular English courses included so much Shakespeare, though they did read R&J.

[Paz]

I think its not "cool" to like to learn or to like literature in the ps system. When my dd was in 10th grade some of her friends who were in ps honors and gifted classes did not know who Homer was.

[RegularMom]

For me, it's a question of making Shakespeare relevant and accessible. I think that good teachers know how to do this. I had a high school English teacher that was a dreaded teacher to get, but when I ended up with her in my senior year, it turned out amazing, because she had a knack for making classics accessible. We read classics all year long and discussed them and wrote about them, and it was incredible. No wonder she was so dreaded. She made us work and think. But for many of us, it was a breath of fresh air, being made to work and think by someone who simply Assumed that we Could Work and Think. :)

 

If a teacher just assigns Romeo and Juliet as a reading assignment, yes, it can be dreary and pointless. For one thing: starting with Romeo and Juliet seems a bit off to me. Why not start with something a little more fun, like Twelfth Night? Or Midsummer Night's Dream? Those two would captivate students much more than Romeo and Juliet, I think. (Although I can also think of several ways to make Romeo and Juliet more captivating.)

 

Or you could start with Richard III and then show the class how Darth Vader becomes very much like Richard in The Empire Strikes Back?

 

Eh... I'm rambling a bit... the point I'm trying to make is: I've had teachers who taught Shakespeare and made it feel pointless and teachers who taught Shakespeare and we all stood and gave standing ovations at the end. The quality of teaching is crucial to doing the classics.

[Just Robyn]

My 15yo niece said this to me yesterday. My sister was asking me how now that the school year is nearly done how did I like our first experience with PS. She agreed with me that kids are horrible when they are in large groups, and said that yeah, once they are in school there is not any time to do much of anything after homework, etc, etc.

I was talking about how I see the end result of education in our district in my college classes, because most of my classmates graduated from this district which is one of the top in the country. I told her how several of the kids when asked to read something aloud read worse than my 1st grader, and how they would fall asleep in class and just had this attitude of apathy. I wound up tutoring a few of them so they could pass. This was a class on Ancient Western Civilization.

My niece interjected and said much of what school makes them read is pointless. Her class is reading Romeo and Juliet and she thinks it is stupid and there is no point to Shakespeare, and she does not see why anyone should read it anymore.

 

I was speechless. Literally speechless. Dh was shocked because he has heard my discourse on reading classics and understanding history many times.

My niece is a straight A student who is being honored for academic accomplishment next week. She is a smart girl. I also understand that 15 yo girls won't always be gung ho about things.

 

It just made me sad...because i know there are millions just like her that don't see "the point" and find it to be a waste of time.

Even Donald Trump has a chapter in one of his books about why reading and knowing the classics is so crucial to one's life. :glare:

 

It may be that the school is not teaching "the point" to Shakespeare. I went to schools with some of the best scores in the state (for public school). We were never taught meter or many other poetic devices (just a few basics - rhyme, alliteration, haiku). Oddly, I thank a Spanish literature course I took in college for introducing me to that. When we read Romeo and Juliet we did not spend time understanding the vocabulary, and without any knowledge of poetic devices, it was not possible for us to really appreciate it. To me it was just a love story (snore). This is from someone who would have loved it if it were taught properly. I loved poetry. I read and wrote it all the time, was on the literary magazine production team, went to local poetry open mic nights. I wanted nothing more than to learn more about poetry in school, but they didn't teach it. Reading Shakespeare meant just that, reading it - maybe watching a movie version afterward. *Reason #247 we homeschool.

[Amirah]

i absolutely love Shakespeare. i was gifted in the reading comprehension area and i read Romeo and Juliet in 4th grade(i asked for it for my birthday) i went on to read most of it and even was Helena in my schools production of a Midsummer nights dream in 10th grade. In all reality though and im just speaking for my life having read classics has made absolutely no difference in my ability to navigate through life or anything else other then me being able to say i read hard books that most people don't understand.

 

living in a city that is greatly mutlicultural i socialize with alot of people educated and not so educated from all over the world.Most of them could care less what books i have read lol. They are more impressed with my knowledge of location and culture of different countries(some people don't know what countries are where) and knowledge of languages (arabic,spanish and french) and my willingness to learn different things.

 

now thats not to say we shouldn't read these classics i am all for reading challenging literature always have been. I think it helps make people think as opposed to twaddle. But i don't think its horrible if you don't read these things. unless your going to be a lit major or something in a field of literature.

[LidiyaDawn]

I suspect that she wouldn't find it nearly as boring if the instructors understood that a play is meant to be watched ~ or created. What they most likely have is 30-some teenagers being given old falling apart copies and told "read pages this to that at home tonight"….

 

If the teachers would take them to see a great production, or engage the assistance of the drama department and actually put on the play themselves for their school/parents/etc, I bet they'd get so much more out of it.

[HoneyFernDotOrg]

I suspect that she wouldn't find it nearly as boring if the instructors understood that a play is meant to be watched ~ or created. What they most likely have is 30-some teenagers being given old falling apart copies and told "read pages this to that at home tonight"….

 

This! We read The Tempest and then discovered The Shakespeare Tavern in Atlanta; we went to see Romeo and Juliet there, and the kids were hooked. Midsummer Night's Dream was their next play at the Tavern, so we read it and then went to see it last week. We had great conversations about the differences in reading and watching. Each time they read one of Shakespeare's plays it becomes easier; we read scenes aloud when we can and talk about what is the same from Shakepeare's time and ours. We wrote sonnets in iambic pentameter. I told them in the beginning that once they understand the language the plays become easier to read and understand, and although they don't universally love his writing, they have all really enjoyed his works.

 

Now we are structuring our readings around The Shakespeare Tavern's list of plays. They are incredible, and if you live in or around Atlanta, I highly recommend it!

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

My first introduction to Shakespeare was in middle school by a teacher whose name I still remember. Her love of literature changed my reading habits and made me seek out more challenging books. I can still see her acting out the part of the old nurse and doing a solo duel with a yard stick as she read aloud R&J.

 

Handing a older child one of the Shakespeare books and expecting them to read and enjoy will wind up saying the same thing as your niece. They need the world of Shakespeare opened up for them. They need it broken down into bite size chunks and dissected. They need to know what was going on during the time the play was written to understand what really was being said. And they need to be shown it needs to be slowly digested not a race to get to the end. Then they will see a point in reading these books. Sadly, most teachers in the schools just don't do this so the point of reading Shakespeare is lost.

[twoforjoy]

I was speechless. Literally speechless. Dh was shocked because he has heard my discourse on reading classics and understanding history many times.

 

I think you'd find that most people throughout history would not have seen a "point" to reading literature/drama. I don't really find anything shocking about it. Unfortunate, perhaps, but not new or surprising.

[SailorMom]

My kids hated Shakespeare when I first introduced them to it.... But when they started actually listening (I was reading it aloud and interpreting for them) and when we read Shakespeare they would enjoy (i.e. not Romeo and Juliet ;) ) I also began giving them the political background of what was going on at the time he wrote.

We watched a documentary on his life, and they were fascinated by the fact that many of his plays were very political, and an almost covert method of free speech. We discussed the parallels with today, etc etc.

Anyway - if a teacher doesn't make the effort to make Shakespeare relevant, then I can see her point. Yes - cultural literacy demands that we know many Shakespeare plots and characters - but far more important (IMHO) is for the kids to actually internalize something useful from it :)

[twoforjoy]

But there is a point to watching Jersey Shore? Reading People Magazine? Spending countless hours on Facebook, and texting 100+ times a day?

 

Your post is the biggest problem facing the U.S. today. We're raising kids who don't "see the point" in thinking for themselves, or learning how to learn.

 

It's scary, to say the least, and it will be the downfall of our country.

 

You think that kids in the 1950s just loved reading Shakespeare in school? Preferred it to talking on the phone to their friends and passing notes in class? Nope. Didn't happen. There is no golden age of history where the average person was just passionately engaged with literature and the arts. It is nothing new.

 

The "point" of the first things you mention is relationships. People Facebook and text because it keeps them in contact with people they care about. Sitting there and reading a Shakespeare play doesn't. (That doesn't mean that reading Shakespeare isn't worthwhile, just that it doesn't involve relationship with others in their life the way that social media does.) Reading People and watching Jersey Shore also keeps them in contact with the common culture that their friends and family members and people who matter to them are a part of. If it was 1598 and everybody was abuzz about Romeo and Juliet and going to see it performed, they'd probably be all about that.

 

And, let us not forget that going to the theater in 1598 was seen as just as frivolous and corrupting, by many people who were just horrified by the decline of their culture that these bawdy plays written in the vernacular represented, as watching Jersey Shore is today.

 

I agree that kids need to be better taught how to think for themselves and how to learn independently. I just don't believe that Shakespeare is necessary to do that; a critical study of Jersey Shore episodes could probably serve a similar purpose. I'm not saying that means people shouldn't learn Shakespeare, at all, just that we should recognize that an apathy about literature, especially older literature, is nothing new or surprising, and that there's nothing magical about Shakespeare that will cause people to think critically or learn how to learn. It's all how the material is presented.

Edited May 15, 2011 by twoforjoy

[Aubrey]

My niece interjected and said much of what school makes them read is pointless. Her class is reading Romeo and Juliet and she thinks it is stupid and there is no point to Shakespeare, and she does not see why anyone should read it anymore.

 

For practical value, it *is* pretty pointless. Beyond that, one must have a teacher who knows how to teach the value in it. When it comes to Shakespeare, a lot of teachers just swoon. They don't see their responsibility to convey value; for them, it's just assumed.

 

A rational discussion of Shakespeare is invigorating & inspiring & fun. It doesn't have material value the way Algebra does, but when something sticks w/ you, makes you think, haunts you, you forget to question its value.

 

Romeo & Juliet is particularly difficult, imo, & it's generally taught for all the wrong reasons. I thought it was pretty pointless too, until I taught it. For my gang-involved students, the question of revenge resulted in a passionate discussion: they'd never had their views of revenge challenged at all. Shakespeare & I couldn't convince them in one day to lay that morality aside, but perhaps we managed to undermine it, so that in time, they might think differently.

 

Beyond that, my favorite question wrt this play is that of tragedy vs comedy: I think R&J is the latter because we see unification at the end. The intro to the play talks about the strife between the families, & the conclusion is about them laying that aside.

[mellie]

Ha ha ha - that sounds like a "teachable moment." Did you tell her what the point is to reading Shakespeare from your perspective?? I remember loathing Thomas Hardy in secondary school - I still would rather eat nails than have to read his boring books. That's the great thing about literature - some you love and some things you don't. Just because something is considered a classic, should not mean you have to love it. If we are teaching children to think for themselves, then they should be allowed an opinion. I was schooled in England, so we read a lot of Shakespeare and I didn't always like it. The teacher makes such a difference.

 

Personally, I would rather read Shakespeare after first seeing it in play form. It makes it more accessible, I believe. Perhaps you could take your niece to a local play? Leonardo DiCaprio did that remake of Romeo and Juliet recently, maybe she would understand the story better if she first watched the movie.

[twoforjoy]

Romeo & Juliet is particularly difficult, imo, & it's generally taught for all the wrong reasons. I thought it was pretty pointless too, until I taught it. For my gang-involved students, the question of revenge resulted in a passionate discussion: they'd never had their views of revenge challenged at all. Shakespeare & I couldn't convince them in one day to lay that morality aside, but perhaps we managed to undermine it, so that in time, they might think differently.

 

I think the problem is teaching R&J as kids' first introduction to Shakespeare, on the assumption that, because it's about kids their age, they'll automatically enjoy it or relate to it. It's probably my least favorite Shakespeare play, and I'd be much more inclined to begin with one of the comedies, probably A Midsummer Night's Dream, with kids in the 9th-10th grade range.

 

I also think Shakespeare is a perfect time to pair classic and contemporary texts, because there is so much that draws on Shakespeare. One of my favorite teaching experiences was teaching King Lear and then Jane Smiley's A Thousand Acres; my students were able, I think, to "get" Lear a lot better, and see how the themes were relevant to contemporary life, by seeing it transplanted to the contemporary American midwest. There are so many movies and books for teens that are updated Shakespearean plots, and my inclination would be to have them read/watch the original first, and then the remake, and let them make connections.

[Haiku]

My niece interjected and said much of what school makes them read is pointless. Her class is reading Romeo and Juliet and she thinks it is stupid and there is no point to Shakespeare, and she does not see why anyone should read it anymore.

 

 

Kids in schools generally study books out of any meaningful context. It's just, "Here, we're going to read this old book with obscure language, and it's a classic." The kids have no idea why.

 

I don't blame your niece for her opinion, even though I disagree.

 

That said, I felt really bad for dd16 when she came home from school and told me that they are reading The Great Gatsby. I read that in 10th grade, too. O.M.G. What a horrendously boring book for a 10th grader. I have no idea why that book is read in 10th grade. I don't think most schooled 10th graders have any idea how to relate to that book. I re-read the book in my 20's and really enjoyed it, but egad ... in 10th grade? No way!

 

Tara

[Snoopytwo]

Sailor Mom,

 

Which documentary did you watch? I would like to do this with my kids.

 

Thanks,

Linda

[Haiku]

Btw, I am surprised to see so many people saying they don't like Romeo and Juliet or that it's not a good work for high schoolers. I read a prose version of it to my kids last year, when they were 8 and 7, and they loved it. I also dug out my old high school copy and read a bunch of original passages so that they could hear the original language. They were intrigued. I think the story of Romeo and Juliet is fascinating, and so did they. Dd9 says it's her second-favorite Shakespeare, her favorite being A Midsummer Night's Dream. Ds8 says it's his second-favorite as well, his first being Macbeth.

 

I took the kids to see Gnomeo and Juliet recently. Still not sure how I feel about that. :001_huh:

 

Tara

[Impish]

I prefer MacBeth to R&J.

 

I honestly think the problem is, Shakespeare is work to get through. The language and the style...its not, say, like Twilight. A quick romp read. Bubble gum for the mind.

 

Shakespeare is a gourmet meal, and that's something that a person used to pizza pockets is going to turn their nose up at, b/c its so very different, and takes more effort.

 

Those that do, however...:D

[pqr]

I prefer MacBeth to R&J.

 

I honestly think the problem is, Shakespeare is work to get through. The language and the style...its not, say, like Twilight. A quick romp read. Bubble gum for the mind.

 

Shakespeare is a gourmet meal, and that's something that a person used to pizza pockets is going to turn their nose up at,

 

The Scottish play??

 

I prefer Henry V and Julius Caesar.....but then again Richard III or...... so very many and ohh so very good.

[Lady Florida.]

I suspect that she wouldn't find it nearly as boring if the instructors understood that a play is meant to be watched ~ or created. What they most likely have is 30-some teenagers being given old falling apart copies and told "read pages this to that at home tonight"….

 

 

 

Or assigned parts for students to read while they sit at their desks. That's how I experienced Shakespeare. I guess my English teachers should get credit for trying - at least they didn't just assign reading. It still isn't the same as seeing the plays, and I didn't appreciate Shakespeare until I saw it performed.

[pqr]

We use films, MacBeth, Caesar, Henry V, Richard III (not set ine the correct period) etc. Many are quite good and make the introduction to Shakespeare easier.

Edited May 15, 2011 by pqr

[Farrar]

Others alluded to this too, but I have never understood why so many schools start with Romeo and Juliet (mine did back in the day). It's not Shakespeare's best work by far, nor is it his most accessible. It's just so culturally well known that schools think it's a good place to start. Bah. I can't stand the play, and I'm such a Shakespeare fanatic that I organized a production of The Tempest starring 1st and 2nd graders this year.

[usetoschool]

My .02 from the top of my soap box, over and over - school in the US has become about career training and practicality and usefulness. It should be about being well educated, able to think, to see the flow of ideas and put all of the pieces together and be able to add pieces and ideas of your own to that flow. Shakespeare is part of the puzzle. When you are well educated you can go on to success in career and life because you have learned the big picture and how to think and work and learn and use your brain. An example from our own life - a well rounded, well educated person can go on to become a better journalist than someone who was on the journalism training track. The first person has ideas to compare, history of things happening, ability to frame the conversation and use the right words - on the training track you only have the technical knowledge for the steps of how to fill in the blanks in a formula article.

 

I think there is a lot of career training and very little mind training going on in the public school system and with the idea of education in general.

[Murphy101]

I actually had no difficulty reading or comprehending Shakespeare in high school. The language is archaic, but that's not a huge obstacle for most in my house. I understood the theme and relationships of the work. I just thought it was stupid and pointless. It wasn't a question of lack of intellect. I just didn't like it.

 

I don't think it accurate to presume if someone just understood the work, they'd suddenly like it or agree with others about it's importance.

[Lady Florida.]

My .02 from the top of my soap box, over and over - school in the US has become about career training and practicality and usefulness.

 

I think there is a lot of career training and very little mind training going on in the public school system and with the idea of education in general.

 

Bingo! Learning for the sake of being well rounded and educated is no longer seen as important in the U.S. In fact, ignorance is often celebrated and an educated person is an elitist. Sad.

[Melinda in VT]

Sometimes kids just like to state an extreme position. Like my 11 yo daughter, who said the other day: "I don't see the point of an English major. Don't you just sit around and read the books people have decided are 'classics'?"

 

I decided not to remind her that two weeks ago on vacation, she bought "A Midsummer's Nigh Dream" to read on the airplane. :lol:

[Mejane]

Romeo & Juliet is particularly difficult, imo, & it's generally taught for all the wrong reasons. I thought it was pretty pointless too, until I taught it. For my gang-involved students, the question of revenge resulted in a passionate discussion: they'd never had their views of revenge challenged at all. Shakespeare & I couldn't convince them in one day to lay that morality aside, but perhaps we managed to undermine it, so that in time, they might think differently.

 

 

 

Yes. I believe it's taught because of the teen aspect, although the suicide angle makes it a particularly odd choice to me. I've read about it being taught alongside West Side Story, which is still old in comparison to them, but probably more accessible. ;)

[Sputterduck]

Well, I agree with her. Shakespeare should not be read. It really ought to be seen as a play.

[angela in ohio]

My .02 from the top of my soap box, over and over - school in the US has become about career training and practicality and usefulness.

 

I would actually argue that it was about that from the beginning. The whole point of the "public" school was to turn out workers. The sad thing is that they aren't even doing a great job of that in some cases anymore.

[angela in ohio]

I can see why a teen would think that now. You appreciate your background knowledge of Shakespeare when you encounter references and understand them. In order to do that, you need to be reading classic literature, speaking to other educated people who know Shakespeare, watching classic movies, etc. Not many teens today are doing those things.

 

There is another principal involved, as well: you don't know that it is good to know something until you know it. That's why so many people are blissfully ignorant about a topic; they have no idea that their lives would be better for learning it, precisely because they don't know it. (That's where educated teachers, parents, and adult mentors come in handy. ;))

[JennyD]

I thought it was pretty pointless too, until I taught it. For my gang-involved students, the question of revenge resulted in a passionate discussion: they'd never had their views of revenge challenged at all. Shakespeare & I couldn't convince them in one day to lay that morality aside, but perhaps we managed to undermine it, so that in time, they might think differently.

.

 

What a fascinating story. Thanks for sharing it.

[Margo out of lurking]

You think that kids in the 1950s just loved reading Shakespeare in school? Preferred it to talking on the phone to their friends and passing notes in class? Nope. Didn't happen. There is no golden age of history where the average person was just passionately engaged with literature and the arts. It is nothing new.

 

"Not seeing the point" in Shakespeare is a symptom, it's not the problem. Geesh.

 

My kids (at least my dd, imo ds is too young) are on FB. They don't watch crap on tv. "Crap" is subjective, and I use my discretion as a parent, which won't necessarily match up with anyone else's. I'm not interested in promoting the "common culture." People had a social life and were "culturally aware" long before FB, or tv, so I'm not sure why you are saying these things must be relevant today. I say Shakespeare will still be read in 100 years; Jersey Shore, not so much.

 

If the presentation is what matters, it's because children today expect to be entertained. And yes, I think that is different than in the past. One could apply your "nothing magical" standard to any subject. An apathy about education is what's wrong, and it goes hand in hand with the general apathy about a lot of things.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Kristine out of lurking

[Pax]

My oldest, who is in public high school in the IB program, did not enjoy the way Shakespeare was being taught. I went out and rented (don't pelt me with tomatoes) the Baz Luhrmann version of Romeo and Juliet and it seemed to open it up for him. Seeing it in a new, more relevant way, was very helpful. Reading chapters on his own was not. After watching that movie, he went on to read a Midsummer Night's Dream and MacBeth.

 

Unfortunately, even our local school's IB program, "thinking" is not required very often. My son recently had a 6 week project that covered multiple subjects regarding the Victorian Age. It could have been a really neat project. Instead, the way it had to be done made it into a project where the kids just regurgitated facts. I was ashamed of the effort he put into it and the end product and was sure he was going to fail. He received a "B" for it and the comments made by the teachers were asinine. :banghead:

Edited May 15, 2011 by Pax

[JennyD]

Others alluded to this too, but I have never understood why so many schools start with Romeo and Juliet (mine did back in the day). It's not Shakespeare's best work by far, nor is it his most accessible. It's just so culturally well known that schools think it's a good place to start. Bah. I can't stand the play, and I'm such a Shakespeare fanatic that I organized a production of The Tempest starring 1st and 2nd graders this year.

 

This post just gave me a great idea (linking up to a planned unit about storms), and I went to your blog and promptly collected your suggestions on The Tempest. So thanks!

[texasmama]

Shakespeare's works are beautiful, rich and necessary for a well-rounded education, IMO. I read many of them in high school in an AP English class.

 

However, I don't know that I truly appreciated them (or Kafka or Camus or The Importance of Being Earnest) until much later in life. I am ever grateful to my high school English teacher, who made these literary works as interesting as possible to a public school class full of teens.

[MrsBasil]

As a student, the only time I enjoyed reading a Shakespeare play, was in 6th grade. We read A Midsummer's Nights Dream, out loud with assigned parts. We discussed it constantly, watched the old movie version, and then put on a play ourselves. I saw the point, I enjoyed it, and years later I catch references to it. We discussed how the play would have been put on originally and the time period it was written.

 

The next time Shakespeare was brought up it was Romeo and Juliet in 9th grade, lots of silent reading, little discussion, and the teacher thought it was a very romantic story. We weren't allowed to express a differing opinion. I think we watched a movie.

 

Sometime in 11th grade we read excerpts of Hamlet and MacBeth and watched the movies. Almost no discussion.

 

She might it find it pointless because of how it's being taught?

[jenniferlee]

Our english teacher took us to the oregon shakespeare festival in Ashland two years in a row to see whatever play we had read that year. What an amazing treat! It really is true that the plays were written to be watched not read. (I mean, they're good to read, but watching them is a whole different and more fully involved and understood experience).

[catz]

As a student, the only time I enjoyed reading a Shakespeare play, was in 6th grade. We read A Midsummer's Nights Dream, out loud with assigned parts. We discussed it constantly, watched the old movie version, and then put on a play ourselves. I saw the point, I enjoyed it, and years later I catch references to it. We discussed how the play would have been put on originally and the time period it was written.

 

The next time Shakespeare was brought up it was Romeo and Juliet in 9th grade, lots of silent reading, little discussion, and the teacher thought it was a very romantic story. We weren't allowed to express a differing opinion. I think we watched a movie.

 

Sometime in 11th grade we read excerpts of Hamlet and MacBeth and watched the movies. Almost no discussion.

 

She might it find it pointless because of how it's being taught?

 

:iagree: I read Midsummer Night's dream this year with my 4th and 1st grader out loud. I really questioned my sanity at the time, but it was relevant for my older (he was learning a piano piece called Puck by Grieg), so we gave it a go. We laughed and all had a blast. I had a version with beautiful illustrations. It was probably 1/3 reading, 2/3 discussion. We are watching carefully for a live performance to come to town. I really agree with the thought they are made to be seen and not just read.

 

I never enjoyed Shakespeare in high school either and I was an honor student and an avid reader. It was presented in a dry, non-relevant way by teachers that had little to no passion for their subject. I guess I don't find it too surprising a 15 year old didn't enjoy it. Even for a very smart kid.

[Rosie_0801]

My niece interjected and said much of what school makes them read is pointless. Her class is reading Romeo and Juliet and she thinks it is stupid and there is no point to Shakespeare, and she does not see why anyone should read it anymore.

 

So where's the next part of this story where you challenge your niece to a bet that you can make her like Shakespeare? :tongue_smilie:

 

Summer is coming up, yes? Shakespeare Boot Camp at your house!

 

 

:lol:

Rosie

[6packofun]

I don't buy into the widespread belief (among homeschoolers, particularly) that there is a canon of *necessary* literature. Who decides that? Should we read thoughtful, challenging literature each year? Of course, but we choose what our education will be.

 

I *love* Shakespeare and so does dh. I think it's great to cover some of it if you can--or at least introduce the basic themes and plots--particularly for it's relevance in the history of literature itself. But, I also think it's best left for the last 2-3 years of high school and there is a LOT to fit in during those years. Our kids will cover some Shakespeare, but I wouldn't think less of any family that chose not to for ANY reason. I don't plan on graduating clones and I don't expect other homeschoolers to either. :D

[justamouse]

R&J isn't my favorite, but it's useful to read if only because the story and plot itself is timeless and will be written over and over till the end (revenge is a oft written plot).

 

But my house loves Shakespeare and my kids read it for fun so I am not a good barometer for these things. And I agree with it having to be seen.

Edited May 16, 2011 by justamouse

[Eleni]

So where's the next part of this story where you challenge your niece to a bet that you can make her like Shakespeare? :tongue_smilie:

 

Summer is coming up, yes? Shakespeare Boot Camp at your house!

 

 

:lol:

Rosie

 

I wish she lived closer...she is 2 hours away. In our city we have a Shakespeare in the Park troupe, and it is WONDERFUL! Lovely part of the city with cobblestone streets and old brick homes, and in the center is the park with a stage. If she could stay here, I know I could get just a spark going for her...but she is allergic to cats and I have 3. :glare:

 

I don't blame my niece, I really don't, she is sweet girl and very smart. It just stung to hear her say that. I too think it is a symptom.

 

Oddly if it were a homeschool family, I wouldn't even take issue with it, because there I am to each his own. I admit to a double standard, and feel that Shakespeare, at least one play (and I agree not necessarily R&J) should be taught, and taught WELL.

 

Hearing it from her made me sad, because she was adamant in that there was no point in learning anything to do with him in this day and age because it is completely irrelevant. Normally I have a list of why it most certainly is, and I couldn't even summon that to memory...I just stuttered something lame.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Eleni

[OrganicAnn]

It is ironic that one of the computer animated graphic kids movies out this spring was Gnome and Juliet.