Is Shakespeare Irrelevant...

[Connavar]

just because the way ppl express themselves today doesnt mean its any different then the way they spoke before.

I see your point, i have listen to some rappers being so poetic that the Bard himself would like it, if he could understand thier modern language that is

 

[Curt Chiarelli]

Well summed up, Chris!

 

[Foxbat]

I dont think shakespeare is irrelevent but i think they need to admit that modern day rappers of the day are the shakespeares of today. Cause mainly I dont understand a word of wat shakespear said or those rappers lol. But they express themsevles the same ways.

Modern day rappers shave been compared to the bard in the past - mainly because of the rythmic structure of their wordage which, I believe, is called Iambic Pentameter (but I could be wrong)

 

[Abbot]

wow being quoted is cool

 

[Vladd67]

Leaving Shakespeare out of an English Degree makes as much sense as plans here in the UK to leave Churchill out when teaching the history of the UK in the 20th century.

 

[j d worthington]

Leaving Shakespeare out of an English Degree makes as much sense as plans here in the UK to leave Churchill out when teaching the history of the UK in the 20th century.

Or skipping Vietnam, the '60s counterculture, Watergate, and the Korean conflict, which is something various school systems in this country have done.

Hell, why don't they just stop pussyfooting around, and make all the classes into Basketweaving 101..... I mean, gawd forbid anyone should actually have to think about these things.....

 

[brsrkrkomdy]

I guess they wanted brain-dead people badly.

 

[Curt Chiarelli]

I guess they wanted brain-dead people badly.

Weak minds and strong backs are the foundation of a politically neutralized, enslaved populace. This is the fertile soil from whence fascism springs.

 

[Tielhard]

Weak minds and strong backs are the foundation of a politically neutralized, enslaved populace.

As a statement I would wholeheartedly endorse the above. However ...

How exactly does taking an English (Lit.) degree in which Shakespeare's plays are studied as texts better prepare one's mind and/or weaken one's back when compared to an English (Lit.) degree in which one studies the works of say Steinbeck or Dicken's or Bronte instead? Is it not the act of analysis that is important? Analysis can be applied to any text, good, bad or indifferent, so why not study Noddy, the Beano and little Mr. Potter instead. Endow them with the same pretensions as we do as Shakespeare and then they are equally good whetstones to sharpen the mind are they not?

Why indeed do we read Shakespeare at all? The man was producing plays not novels. Would it be appropriate to only study Hardy by watching fims of his books? Should students only encounter Prokofiev as sheet music. Will we ask our young mathematicians to learn of cellular automata by playing the Game of Life alone?

 

[j d worthington]

Analysis can be applied to any text, good, bad or indifferent, so why not study Noddy, the Beano and little Mr. Potter instead. Endow them with the same pretensions as we do as Shakespeare and then they are equally good whetstones to sharpen the mind are they not?

Theoretically... yes. In practice... hardly. What you're dealing with here is a reductio ad absurdum argument. Under such an argument, Harlequin romances would be as good. No; a text that is richer in itself is a much, much better whetstone for sharpening minds than one that has about the same texture as a loaf of Wonder Bread (metaphorically speaking). No one is endowing Shakespeare with "pretensions"... the richness is there to begin with. To put your other examples on the same plane, on the other hand, would be to endow with pretensions of an extreme sort.

Why indeed do we read Shakespeare at all? The man was producing plays not novels. Would it be appropriate to only study Hardy by watching fims of his books? Should students only encounter Prokofiev as sheet music. Will we ask our young mathematicians to learn of cellular automata by playing the Game of Life alone?

Again, not at all the same thing. Prokofiev's music can be studied as written scores, but it was originally played, not simply written. It is, if you will, a different language, a different medium, while plays, like books, are in a spoken language that is also a written language. Shakespeare wrote to be performed, he also had to be read, for one thing; for another, the man simply wrote some of the most amazing pieces of literature in the English language... ever! If one wishes to study English as either a language or as literature, then one turns to the greatest exemplars there are, and he most certainly fits the bill.

 

[HardScienceFan]

why even study when you can drink Coke send textmessages,and hang at the mall?

 

[littlemissattitude]

Because I can drink Coke (or, in my case, caffeine-free diet Pepsi) while studying, and I'd much rather study Shakespeare...or anything else, for that matter...than either send text messages or hang at the mall.

Yeah, I know. I'm old now. But I didn't like hanging at the mall even when I was younger. And, yes, I've always been a nerd.

 

[Vladd67]

Hamlet - A great piece of work or just a collection of quotes?

 

[Tielhard]

j. d. worthington,

Is your daughter on the stage by any chance?

I wrote:

Analysis can be applied to any text, good, bad or indifferent, so why not study Noddy, the Beano and little Mr. Potter instead. Endow them with the same pretensions as we do as Shakespeare and then they are equally good whetstones to sharpen the mind are they not?

To which you replied (notational numbers being my inclusion:

Theoretically... yes. In practice... hardly.[1]
What you're dealing with here is a reductio ad absurdum argument.[2]
Under such an argument, Harlequin romances would be as good. [3]
No; a text that is richer in itself is a much, much better whetstone for sharpening minds than one that has about the same texture as a loaf of Wonder Bread (metaphorically speaking).[4]
No one is endowing Shakespeare with "pretensions"... [5]
the richness is there to begin with.[6]
To put your other examples on the same plane, on the other hand, would be to endow with pretensions of an extreme sort.[7]

[1] What you seem to be groping towards here but have not stated is that it is easier to get students to study analysis using a text which is inherently interesting. This may well be true, if it is then clearly we would be better teaching our students using the Beano as it is far more interesting than Shakespeare and if it does get boring then it at least has pictures that tell you something about the text such that no one comes away from the text with nothing. I am not however convinced that by using an 'interesting' text as the focus of thier study students are being correctly encouraged to apply analysis. Surely being able to analyse the content of a mobile phone contract is a better life skill than being able to disccourse upon something interesting like the relative merrits of the Culture and contemporary American society or even something really boring like how having Hofman, a real Jew, playing Shylock impacts the dynamic of Ther Merchant of Venice.

[2] My argument is not a reduction to the absurd argument as either a mathematician or a logician would understand the concept. I suggest therefore that you are using exageration for dramatic effect, deploying rhetoric to convince the audience?

[3] I assume that a Harlequin romance is like the fine cod purveyed by Messers. Mills and Boon rather than the quest of the clown in motley for his Columbine? In any case your assertion is correct, your assertion to the nature of my argument as in [2] above wrong.

[4] At this point we come to the crux of your argument. That 'richness' of text is an important factor in how well that text can be used to sharpen minds. This may or may not be so. Unfortunately, you have neither defined what 'richness' is nor demostrated that it is to be found in the works of Shakespeare. Thus I cannot comment on this your central thesis.

[5] No one is endowing Shakespeare with 'pretensions'". I take as MY text the ancient art English Pantomime. "OH! YES THEY ARE!". I content that Shakespeare is pretentious for the following reasons; some of it is propaganada in support of crowns long fallen, it is of inconsistent morality, it is laughable when it should be serious, pathetic when it should be funny, human motivations are often unreal, it is racist, sexist and sectarian, I grow weary &c. &c. &c.. You on the other hand ask the audience to accept your assurances that Shakespeare is without pretensions simply on your say so! Not good enough!

[6] If you think the stuff is 'rich' show us why. We are not Orwell's sheep, you have to show us not only that the text is 'rich' but the 'richness' has some value. Do not expect us to say "baaaaa baaaa it is rich because j. d. Worthington says it is so"

[7] If you think the Beano is pretentious you have to demostrate it to your audience. Ditto Noddy. Ditto Potter (although in this case I would personally yeild to your position out of personal distaste for the text).

You also wrote:

Again, not at all the same thing. Prokofiev's music can be studied as written scores, but it was originally played, not simply written. It is, if you will, a different language, a different medium, while plays, like books, are in a spoken language that is also a written language. [1]

Shakespeare wrote to be performed, [2]

also had to be read, for one thing; for another, the man simply wrote some of the most amazing pieces of literature in the English language... ever! [3]

one wishes to study English as either a language or as literature, then one turns to the greatest exemplars there are, and he most certainly fits the bill [4]

[1] This is not a valid argument. One can read Prokofiev but fewer than one in a thousand can appreciate it fully this way. I was meant to be played not read. Once can read Shakespeare but in doing so so much is lost, he intended his plays to be performed not read.

[2] This point in a nutshell

[3] No he did not. He wrote what SOME people think were the most amazing pieces in the nglish language. Good God some people think Buffy scripts are the greatest works in the English language, some the Bible. You would not want to stop these people having an opinion but yopu would not want to encourage them in thier delusions. So too with the Shakespeare buff (see just like the bard I can do really bad puns, just like the bard they are quite,quite rubbish).

[4] This suggests we might study English Lit for some reason other than to learn analysis, I for one can see no other reason. One does not need to be trained to read for enjoyment.

 

[littlemissattitude]

Once can read Shakespeare but in doing so so much is lost, he intended his plays to be performed not read.

I can't recall every studying Shakespeare in any literature class, beginning in junior high school and extending through upper division university work, where there was not some element of that incorporated into the study. Sometimes it was highly recommended that the students watch a good production of the play in question along with "just" reading it. Sometimes said good production was actually shown in class. And sometimes parts were assigned and the play was performed "reader's theater" style in class.

At any rate, the fact that Shakespeare wrote to be heard, to be performed, was not ignored as part of the process of teaching the material.

 

[j d worthington]

Tielhard: Nifty little analysis, that... and an interesting exercise in a practical demonstration....

I'm limited on time today, unfortunately, or I'd go over it point by point... I hope to have the time to do so tomorrow morning. However, as part of my rebuttal, I would remark that I didn't say he wrote the best, but some of the best pieces -- rather a big difference. (Personally, I'd say that Christopher Marlowe outdoes Shakespeare in various points, but that's another discussion for later on.)

However, the fact that Shakespeare has continued to be considered to be relevant after four centuries; that the more one does read works besides those contemporaneous with one's own time, the one more finds that he still remains a marvelous touchstone of human emotions and thought put into a form both eloquent and succinct, expressed in language that remains among the most exquisite recorded; and that he continues to be interpretable on numerous levels after all the exhaustive work done on his various pieces -- sonnets as well as plays... all tend to support my assertion on the richness of his work opposed to the examples you provide.

At any rate, I look forward to going over this one... looks like we could have quite an interesting discussion here....

Ah... one other point: Of course, one not need to be trained to read for enjoyment on the most basic level, but the more one learns, the more one brings to a text -- especially one that contains so much of an awareness of cultural continuities (via history, legendry, mythology both popular and at times scholastic, etc.) -- then the more levels one can enjoy said text on. However, certain texts are much more able to support a variety of readings than others, as they have that essential richness I referred to... product of a very nice "finger on the pulse" of the human condition coupled with a true orator's "feel" for the language.....

 

[Connavar]

I think its funny he compares Shakepeare scripts to Buffy.




Also who said you read Shakespeare so you could learn english to read books for enjoyment??


In a very big part of the world when you study english he is important
cause he shows what you can do with the english language with his special langauge if you like his stuff or not.

That doesnt matter if its in lower grades or in a College.


Its like studiying Art and not work on Da Vinci and Picasso.

 

[Tielhard]

1) It seems I have far surpassed my usual quota of typos and dyslexic symptoma in my last post. Sorry, I rushed it and did not use a checker.

2)

Tielhard: Nifty little analysis, that... and an interesting exercise in a practical demonstration....

As it was intended to be. Without, I hasten to add any formal study of Shakespeare* or literature of any sort.

3) Like Estragon and Vladimir I await the j.d. worthington full response with eager anticipation but hopefully not for quite as long as they do?

4) To CoR

I think its funny he compares Shakepeare scripts to Buffy.

'he'? 'he'? I am Tielhard please refer to me as such. You are sooo rude! [Flounces off in a huff wearing Scarlett O'Hara wedding cake dress!]

However, I digress. I can see you are a Buffy fan and that it offends you to have Shakespeare compared to Buffy but I have to say your views are very much in the minority. You may say what can possibly compare with the juxtaposition of horror and humour, the joyful playing with language and the spectacle that is Buffy? Shakespeare at his best does most of this as well. Admitedly his language is far more stillted, the jokes mostly poor puns and carry on smut but he does spectacle well. In conclusion I think you have to accept that whilst Buffy may be the better product, the bard is at least worth of comparison.











*OK R&J when I was 15.

 

[SpaceShip]

Tielhard: This suggests we might study English Lit for some reason other than to learn analysis, I for one can see no other reason. One does not need to be trained to read for enjoyment.

I quite agree. My life would have been so much more dull without him.

Just loved Twelfth Night, The Merchant of Venice, Midsummer Night's Dream - and I'm sure I've seen many a film that should have had the writer's name as Shakespeare!!!!

 

[Jack]

The mind boggles. For 4 years! 4Years! I had every day at school Shakespeare for crammed down my cake hole morning, noon and night. Midsummers nights dream this McBeth that, and my sister, oh no. She got to read Lord of the Bloody rings!! My thoughts on Shakespeare are darkly bias, I see little difference between it and so called modern ‘art’. Both take a degree over self-opinionated clap-trap and snobbery and in pulling words out of one’s rear end to actually understand how both a picture of the Mona Lisa made from dry elephant dung and how one stanza of very poorly written old English have any secret depths or intrinsic value! If you want children’s minds to be enlightened then try modern writings as some are beyond compare, I mean Ann Frank is an idea so is To kill a Mockingbird and don’t even think Catchers in the Rye or Of mice or Men or force plays of McBeth on unsuspecting pre-pubescent boys!!
And breathe – and relax – If you missed it, I did say I was bias.