While we fight it out over on that other thread over whether Romeo & Juliet is the best way to introduce Shakespeare, let me start a different thread on a similar topic. What, exactly, do we think that these kids are getting out of Shakespeare? More optimistically, what are we hoping that they get? Is it just for entertainment value? The history lesson? Simply for the accomplishment so they can say they’ve experienced Shakespeare?
This is the question that comes to mind when I hear the occasional teacher say that they’ve done King Lear at the high school level. I believe completely that teenagers can read the play, answer test questions on it, write essays about it, and even perform it. But do they *get* it? *Can* they get it?
One reason that Romeo & Juliet is defended as a good choice is that it’s about similar ages experiencing similar issues – first love, hormones, etc… not to mention violence, and dirty jokes. After all, what are Romeo and Juliet if not horny teenagers? You could have many relevant conversations that start with “You’re in love with someone your parents would not approve of. What do you do?”
On a related note I’ve often explained Hamlet to people this way: “Hamlet is the story of a kid whose father is out of the picture, and then his mom married a guy that he doesn’t get along with. Gee, you think there’s any high school kids out there that might be able to relate to that story?” Personally I was more like a freshman in college before I got into the whole “Wow, yeah, I see what Hamlet was saying….” existential phase, but I suppose that could happen at the high school level, too.
But Lear? How do *most people*, let alone teenagers who haven’t yet experienced most of their lives, get Lear? I think I’m just barely beginning to appreciate the scope of Lear, and that only because a) I’ve got children of my own and b) my parents are at that age where every conversation eventually comes around to “…and here’s what we’re going to leave you when we’re gone, we won’t be around forever you know.”
For me, personally, I like to ask “Having read/understood/absorbed/internalized this play, is my life different?” For Comedy of Errors? Nah, not really. For Hamlet, or Lear, or even The Tempest or Midsummer? Most definitely.
Am I aiming too high? Do we teach Shakespeare to change students’ lives, or just to put that checkmark next to their name saying we did it?
Author: duane
Romeo and Juliet : The War
Want.
Spotted this new Stan Lee project on IO9’s list (posted previously). I don’t know if I’m just getting more into comics lately, but it looks cool. Don’t miss the character sketches. Somebody want to tell them there’s a typo in Montague’s name? 🙂 Benvolio looks pretty badass for a peacemaker.
The Late Night Double Feature Shakespeare Show
Oh, well, Merry Christmas to me!
IO9 has put up one of the most comprehensive lists of Shakespeare in science fiction and fantasy that I’ve yet seen.
35 different entries, depending on how you count : 11 books, 12 movies, 9 tv shows/series, and 3 comics.
I’ve only heard about 21 of them (which gives me lots of new books to read after Christmas!), and personally experienced about 10 of them.
Some of the choices are cheating – like putting Gnomeo and Juliet and Henry 5, two movies that aren’t even out yet, onto a list of “coolest Shakespeare riffs”. Or more than a handful of one-off appearances in 1970’s tv shows (including Fantasy Island and I Dream Of Jeannie. What, no Love Boat?) Like most of these lists it really ends up being “as many as we could think of”, and then they just tack on some adjective to make it interesting in the title.
DISCLAIMER : If you’re not up on your geek news, note that IO9 is part of Gawker Media, who recently lost their entire password database to hackers. This is important information to consider before registering to post comments. The existing problem is fixed (they say), but what exactly does that mean, given how easily it was hacked in the first place? I think, reluctantly, I consider Gawker sites to be “read only” now.
What Would You Teach? (The Romeo And Juliet Dilemma)
As we’ve just confirmed, Romeo and Juliet remains most students’ introduction to Shakespeare (at least in the US, assuming approximately a 9th grade / 14yr old introduction). The problem, as many have also pointed out, is that Romeo and Juliet has got a crazy amount of sex references in it, and typically a high school teacher (again, at least in the US) is severely constrained in exactly how far he or she can go in explaining these things. Lastly there’s also the question of whether Romeo and Juliet is the best example of Shakespeare’s work to start with. Maybe being a teenager has changed since I was a teenager, but the thought of re-enacting the balcony scene with some random girl from class was always to be met with “Oh god no not that I hate that don’t make me do that” feelings.
So then, here’s the question : Should it be changed? Assume the following : You must introduce Shakespeare to United States school children in a way that could be accepted as national curriculum (i.e, we can’t talk about special case “let them pick their own” situations, we need to actually pick one). When do you introduce it (roughly what age), and what play do you start with? Why? Do you teach it as history, as literature, or as drama? I fully expect “a combination of all three” answers, so let me rephrase that – assuming that Drama, Literature and History are different departments taught by different teachers, who will be teaching Shakespeare? To set a baseline let us also assume that the students would be required to read the play, have some degree of homework associated with the play, and be able to pass some form of test demonstrating their knowledge of the play. This is primarily to rule out the “I took my kids to see The Tempest when they were 3 years old!” argument. I will not try to argue that my kids “know Shakespeare” until they have experienced it to at least this level.
Keep in mind the realities of the situation – there will most likely be a bell-curve of students, some of whom excel, some of whom just can’t seem to get it, and a whole bunch in the middle who may or may not care at all. Any play that has any level of performance involved should take into consideration roles for both boys and girls (or at least, have a plan for how to deal with this).
If you want to defend Romeo and Juliet as still the best choice, feel free.
Shakespeare's Porn
Who was Giulio Romano, and why does he merit a mention in Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale (“a piece many years in doing and now newly performed by that rare Italian master, Julio Romano”)?
Apparently Romano’s work known as the I Modi (“the positions”) depicts a series of 16 explicit sexual positions. The work was handed around, soon becoming a wood cut and going on to be a best seller in Europe where the likes of Ben Jonson apparently got a look at it. Did Jonson perhaps invite his friend Shakespeare over to have a look at his dirty book?