I agree that it's not an easy read for kids. We used the 1968 film version of Romeo and Juliet to get across the story, structure and general themes before focusing in upon the language. Our approaches may differ, but the watching is important.Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Meh, even if people were teaching Harry Potter, students in Canada and the US would still complain about the difficulty, or how boring it is. Simply put, I am in China where classic literature isn't just hard, it is downright frustrating at times - it is like learning Latin based on English prefixes and Suffixes - simply put, it is basically breaking down your own thought into the most rudimentary simplifications of language, then making it overtly ornate and difficult by means of subtle, complex vocabulary. Still, people here do not complain, and every kid learns it, to an extent.
Now, I think we just come from a culture, where in education if you do not like something, or do not understand something, you just complain about it - the truth is, even the teachers share the same thought - the bulk of my English teachers couldn't tell you a thing outside of the teacher's guide about Shakespeare or poetry (in truth, one of them probably set back poetry readers a few years by giving the wrong information). That isn't to say that teachers are necessarily bad, but when it comes to Shakespeare, one simply has to admit that once you figure out how it works, either by pushing through it yourself, or by having a good teacher, it isn't that difficult.
Simply put, the novel A Clockwork Orange was taught in my high school, accompanied by a dictionary for its synthetic language, as if people couldn't figure it out - everything must be dumbed down, otherwise people complain.
Watching the movie is just another dumbing down - when people watch the movie, they perhaps understand how it works - but which plays actually have good film adaptations? Even the best adaptations aren't much like the play itself - namely, Orson Welles' Othello, or Kurasawa's Samurai movies - the actual play though, will take a certain approach to actually get anywhere.
What people then do, is decide it is easier to just give the answer, rather than make people learn - they stick definitions of every allusion and easy to hard word they can find, and also stick plot summaries in there.
Then again, there is also the idea that to learn to read Shakespeare, you translated it into "Modern English" which is interesting, until you realize that Shakespeare is speaking the same language, and instead of translating, you should just read him.
Last edited by JBI; 01-02-2011 at 11:14 PM.
There are no good Romeo and Juliet movies.
"So-Crates: The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing." "That's us, dude!"- Bill and Ted
"This ain't over."- Charles Bronson
Feed the Hungry!
Agreed, JBI. One of my goals is to change this in my classrooms. I did in my student teaching and was successful (in that I didn't dumb everything down and give them the answers ... I never gave them the answers, I made them come to the answers). Unfortunately, not many teachers do this. And hopefully I will not become some cynical pessimist that most veteran teachers seem to be. Because it is easier to just give the answer than have a discussion. Much easier. Which is exactly why I never did it. I'm surprised my students didn't hate me.
The fact is that kids do find Shakespeare difficult and struggle to see the relevance to their lives. If it takes the film versions or summaries to help them, then it's worth it for them to get a handle on it. The just read it approach will only work with a few able and appreciative unless you do supply help. As Mutatis has said, there is scope for developing your own opinions about the plays which makes them so rich. I'm not sure how Mutatis knows what most other teachers are doing though.
Do you think it's funny that on a thread about a 2011 theme for a masterpiece, the discussion tracks back to the comfortable past?
Truth is high school kids cant see the relevance and care about literature, math . sciences, history and virtually all high school subjects. They simply dont give a ****. When I say this I mean boys not girls, by high school the maturity a girl has is only achieved by a boy when he graduates from university. BUT it is ok. As at that age you are trying to figure out important stuff. An interest for academics shall come later in life.
besides in principal I dont think old will should be taught in the basic high school english class. What ?!?! why not teach them the best, why should we dumb down the system? At least if we force it they will have read it once in their lives. Well I see it like this. Imagine you are a student who doesn't give a third nipple about biology, and knows absolutely nothing about the subject. You enter biology class and the teacher begins teaching you high end theoretical bio. You have no base in bio, no interest and the teacher is teaching you the highest end of the bio spectrum. You are going to hate bio for life.
Furthermore the theory of if we force them to read it they shall have read it at least once is faulty now a days. I speak from my high school experience. There were 12 guys in my english class and 10 gals. In two years non of the guys ever read one single book we were assigned. We just went to spark notes looked up a summary and bul****ed from that point. And most of us did well in exams.
I say in high-school the people must be allured not forced into it. Shakespeare biographically specking had no life that we know of and his plays are very impersonal, as we never know or hear Shakespeare's actually voice. This means that the kids wont be able to make any connection with Shakespeare what so ever. Instead teach them famous writers who they can relate to, who they could admire: Byron and his whormongering maddened ways, Shelley and his revolutionary spirit, Baudelaire and Rimbaud the drug and liquor addled rebels, Hemingway and Fitzgerald the rebellious alcoholics with lives full of intrigue and excitement. And of all these authors, when we read here works it is not some impersonal voice speaking; it is clearly the authors voice. The kids form a connection that way and want to understand the work.
This part is true. I was thinking about this last night and how during subjects I wasn't interested in I simply never did the work and would basically doodle the entire time the teacher lectured/taught.
This is true too. Although I occasionally did do the reading or read half of it.Furthermore the theory of if we force them to read it they shall have read it at least once is faulty now a days. I speak from my high school experience. There were 12 guys in my english class and 10 gals. In two years non of the guys ever read one single book we were assigned. We just went to spark notes looked up a summary and bul****ed from that point. And most of us did well in exams.
This I don't agree with. First off The Great Gatsby is taught in many HS. So are some of Hemingway's novels, usually in the honors/AP classes. Having known some of those students, they didn't particularly enjoy them. Also, having just recently read The Sun Also Rises and A Farewell to Arms, those books are difficult in different ways (such as how much is implied in situations and figuring out who is speaking in dialogue and what exactly they are talking about sometimes). I would've disliked those novels intensely at that age.I say in high-school the people must be allured not forced into it. Shakespeare biographically specking had no life that we know of and his plays are very impersonal, as we never know or hear Shakespeare's actually voice. This means that the kids wont be able to make any connection with Shakespeare what so ever. Instead teach them famous writers who they can relate to, who they could admire: Byron and his whormongering maddened ways, Shelley and his revolutionary spirit, Baudelaire and Rimbaud the drug and liquor addled rebels, Hemingway and Fitzgerald the rebellious alcoholics with lives full of intrigue and excitement. And of all these authors, when we read here works it is not some impersonal voice speaking; it is clearly the authors voice. The kids form a connection that way and want to understand the work.
You're making a lot of questionable assumptions.
As I already pointed out, Shakespeare is understandable and enjoyed by 5th Grade students in inner city schools. One of the reasons these kids enjoy Shakespeare and literature is because they think about how it relates to their lives and they're taught how to read it properly. Not to mention they're actually performing it (giving them more of a vested interest to understand the characters and materials better). Also, I think 5th graders are more open to learning. Shakespeare is the complete opposite of what you just said. He is one of the most relatable authors out there.
Problem is simple. You need better teachers who can actually inspire children to have an interest in the materials and help them understand how Shakespeare and all sorts of literature can connect to their lives. Maybe teach Shakespeare earlier in 5th grade when students are more open to learning. My copy of Romeo and Juliet has left my library 3 times this year, all to 5th graders.
Last edited by Drkshadow03; 01-03-2011 at 07:32 PM.
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
I think that most students [secretly] like and respect and even prefer teachers who do not just give them the answers. There is no chance of providing a spark of passion by giving the answers, but that chance does exist when you push your students, even if it's just a chance rather than a given. The ones who have the capacity to care about these things will appreciate you. The ones who don't, well, giving them the answers outright wouldn't do anything for them either.
West Side Story? R and J is good but not one of Shakespeare's best. It doesn't have the complexities that some of the other tragedies have.
Agreed. Students want to feel clever. Treating them as if they are incapable of interpreting literature for themselves and deciding which 'rank' the student belongs in is hardly going to encourage them that education is a good thing. Students who have the misfortune of being shoved into a lower rank won't do the work because they believe that they are forever stuck in that rank. Quite a few students shoved in a high rank will do the mimimum needed to get them an A because they know that they are a 'top student'.
Learning Shakespeare is like learning French. It isn't the language we speak but it bears a strong resemblance towards it. The grammar is sometimes confusing. But once you pick up the basics, it becomes easier. It's not impossible to learn- it just takes getting used to.
I disagree. It isn't that they can't see the relevance. They can. They just choose to ignore or disregard it. It's the old "this doesn't apply to me or my future" mindset.
And, while girls do mature faster than boys, it is only in some ways. They have the potential to act more adult, and some do, but not all. Boys are goofier and tend to laugh a lot more and fart and poop jokes (but, who doesn't?), but girls can be down right mean. Mature or not, girls can be way more vindictive than boys. Plus, some boys are more mature than some girls. You can't paint all boys or all girls with one brush.
They do. At the end of my student teaching, I handed out evaluations on my teaching to be done anonymously. I got a lot of positive responses. They liked the discussions and said they learned a lot. How much of it was brown-nosing I don't know, but it felt good nonetheless.
In the UK it was revealed that the 11 plus exams, last held in the 1960's before the advent of the comprehensive system, were weighted in favour of boys. It's long been known that not only do girls generally mature faster, but that aside, they are academically more advanced than their male peers. There have been efforts over the past decade to improve boys' reading ability.
That's why the Goosebumps series was so well received in the 90's.
Last edited by Paulclem; 01-03-2011 at 06:17 PM. Reason: Further thoughts
I guess you mean as a compulsory thing. Grammar school entry still requires passing and getting a good mark on the 11-plus.
That's right. the comprehensive system was supposed to equalise education, and to equalise the former two tier system. Not all the grammar schools went, and so to gain entry they still had the 11 plus exams. Most people went on to a comprehensive. I think they qwere trying to modernise away from the factory fodder system that had existed with the 11 plus.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
