|
Post by Bardolator on Aug 3, 2002 13:44:54 GMT -5
I plan on teaching English someday and if I'm lucky, I'll be teaching Shakespeare. So what should or should not be taught at the high school level? Or the Junior high school level?
Just to start things off... I tutored some 18 yr. olds in 'Antony and Cleopatra'. They were just bored to tears by the play, asked me for help... turns out they had no clue about the historical background. I mean, they had heard of Cleopatra and Rome but had a helluva time with the politics of the Triumvirate, etc. The point is, AFTER they got past the historical challenges and the language, they could start to appreciate some of the main themes: mature romance, obsession, etc.
Then they told me what plays they thought would be good to teach. Basically, any play that stands alone without having to know too much about the historical background, something relatively direct and fast-moving, and something that kids could relate to.
Which brings me (finally) to the question--what's the absolute worst play for a high school class?
From the kids feedback of above...
GOOD: Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, Othello... I'm not familiar with the comedies though I have a friend who thinks Taming of the Shrew can be taught to anyone.
BAD: Almost all of the history plays except Henry V. Definitly not Titus. Antony and Cleo is probably about as bad a play to use as an into to shakespeare as one could choose.
It may not be the most specific topic in the world but I submit it humbly for your consideration...
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 3, 2002 16:24:05 GMT -5
I think it's a GREAT topic, actually From my viewpoint, a great piece of literature is a great piece of literature. A truely great work (great for what it is and not necessarily for what people project onto it) can appeal to all ages and cultural cross-sections so long as it is introduced properly. We all think and feel in similar ways, though on the surface, our contexts are very different. In highschool, for example, the teacher and the students typically believe they have nothing in common. They are from hopelessly different worlds, yet they all cry, all laugh, all have fears dreams, persecutions and triumphs. They buy many of the same products, watch many of the same television shows, and are subject to much of the same mainstream culture. Therefore, the teacher may assume that his/her students could not appreciate Shakespeare the same way he/she does, and the students assume that if the teacher loves Shakespeare, they will not since they are so different. As a result, the teacher approaches Shakespeare in the classroom as if he/she does not expect the students to take to it. The students read this in his/her actions and are turned off. We read Romeo and Juliet my freshman year of highschool because my teacher felt that we might have a chance of being interested since the characters were teenagers. The message I got was "Shakespeare isn't for you, but maybe the fact that these characters are teenagers will sell you, though the rest of the play surely won't". As a result, I was turned off. I think we need to expect more of students and their abilities to appreciate great works. Given a fair chance, many adolescents with the right opportunity take to Shakespeare with much zest and enthusiasm. There are so many people on this board who have loved Shakespeare from an early age, and of course Iago is our resident adolescent currently discovering how much he loves the bard. Students can and will relate if they are expected and genuinely encouraged to. That being said, my best choices for plays highschool students should read first are in direct opposition to your suggestions. I say go with the english histories. Yes, the background can be a pain in the ass, but no set of plays contain more action and momentum, in my opinion. Imagine following the stories and battles through the three parts of Henry VI and culminating with Richard III, or following the adventures of Prince Hal from 1 Henry IV to Henry V. Richard II is my favorite Engish History, but probably the worst suited to an introductory highschool class. I think these other histories can be incredibly exciting for young people. Incidentally (and I would surely mention this in any introductory course) Star Wars was originally based upon Richard III. Darth Vader was the great general turned corrupt dictator who would eventually be overthrown. Much of the histories read like Star Wars, and it isn't so far of a stretch to envision Prince Hal and Hotspur facing off with lightsabors. In many ways, the histories were the Star Wars of Renaissance England. They were the thrilling action series that people of all ages flocked to see, and seemed to respond highly favorably to.
|
|
Lord3
Money Lender
'Tis a lucky day, boy, and we'll do good deeds on't
Posts: 40
|
Post by Lord3 on Aug 4, 2002 0:47:11 GMT -5
One of the thrills of Shakespeare is the thrill of the hunt. Figuring out what, in some cases what in hell, he was talking about. Deciphering the syntax, discovering the allusions, finding the meaning of those delicious sounds- these are only some of the things that excite me about the plays. Then of course once I've done all that there is the application to my own life. What these thoughts mean to me. A teacher of any subject should try to instill the desire to discover and if they can't try I'm not sure they should be teaching. I think the plays that need the least amount historical knowledge are better for beginners. It would be a brilliant and imaginative way to teach history the way you suggest, Shaxper. Imagine a history teacher bringing in the Henrys!
I would go for The Tempest (love, monster, forgiveness, magic, language, drunks, jokes and intrigue), AYLI (the greatest female role I can think of, bawd, love, jokes, famous speeches) and The Winter's Tale (my favorite for so many reasons not the least of which is that it's difficult.)
Miss Brodie, in The Prime of, says something like : Give me a gal at an impressionable age, and she is mine for life. Once we find, or as a teacher instill, the joy of discovery...
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 4, 2002 19:37:46 GMT -5
I agree that "discovering" the nuances of the text is half the fun. The Tempest was the second Shakespeare play to which I was introduced (three years later). At first, the language barrier combined with my previous conceptions of Shakespeare distanced me from the text, but the moment my teacher explained how the struggle between Propsero and Caliban was far from clear right and wrong was the moment I was sold. The idea that Caliban was BOTH a treasonous hellspan and a wrongfully enslaved creature of beauty forced me to think in a new and different way...and I liked it.
I guess that's the true problem with highschool English. We assume students cannot intellligently interpret a text for themselves, and so we tell them how to read it and what to think about it. It's a horrendous form of thought control that teaches compliance and a reluctance to think independently, and it turns students off. Teach them (some of) the ambiguities. Show them what's kept readers fascinated for hundreds of years. Of course there's more to Shakespeare than just that, but its half the magic of reading the plays, as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
Lord3
Money Lender
'Tis a lucky day, boy, and we'll do good deeds on't
Posts: 40
|
Post by Lord3 on Aug 4, 2002 22:33:38 GMT -5
Amen, brother Shaxper.
Bardolator, I think Mackers would be a great choice too. Much blood, one scary lady, witches, ghosts, staging problems, good lines, many ways to look at motivation and consequence. R and J, idonknow. There's a thread on that. Othello absolutely. Some say Taming of the Shrew can't be played to a modern audience, if you had a good class that could be a great discussion. I would also add A Midsummer Night's Dream. It's very accessible and who doesn't like a good bottom joke. The mechanical scenes are always fun to put on their feet. But to reiterate Shaxper, if the teacher can, with intelligence and passion, get the students to see the possiblities, I don't think it matters which play you choose.
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Aug 5, 2002 0:16:03 GMT -5
Hmmm...
Well, Julius Caesar (the prequel to A&C) was once the most popular play for high school students. According to Norrie Epstein, it is because it is the only play without sex (appealing thus to teachers if not students) and it tied in with the almost universal study of Latin. Students could get Caesar (The Gallic Wars) in the morning in Latin class and Caesar (Shakespeare) in the afternoon in English.
I'm not a teacher, but I think you might be missing something in not teaching "historical" plays. The students can learn the background and enjoy the play. Sometimes, history isn't the way Shakespeare wrote it (Macbeth killed Duncan--but it wasn't murder) and that can lead to an interesting discussion of how great literature shapes our view of history. Maybe you aren't teaching a history class, but that's no reason why you can't teach a bit of history. Besides, you can have fun with history plays. Richard III has been popular since Burbage first roared "A horse..." The interchanges between Hal and Falstaff are very funny.
A note from my daughters. In their school, kids are taught only tragedies (R&J, Macbeth, Hamlet). Despite their repeated requests, they were never taught a comedy. Comedies tend to be more sexually explicit, but they can be fun. They way my kids were taught, Shakespeare is always SERIOUS, except for the occassional comic relief.
|
|
|
Post by Ganymede on Aug 8, 2002 10:31:26 GMT -5
Just a note about how I was taught Shakespeare in my high school days...
My teacher senior year had us read Macbeth, which is an excellent choice I might add. But in addition to reading it, we had to perform a scene-- not just read it, but actually with costumes, props, (sparse) scenery, etc. It really helped in my understanding of the play and got me (and my group partners) thinking. What would Lady Macbeth wear? How would Macbeth be speaking here? etc. And to do a good job, we really had to understand what was going on in our scene. Breaking it down in this way, really getting to know the play scene by scene, helps tremendously. Then, watching the other groups perform connects the scenes together and spurs discussion-- comparing how different groups portrayed the characters differently at different points in the play.
And of course, this technique can be used for any play. Even those students who shy away from acting in front of the class can get involved in set design or costuming,etc. It seemed to work for my class. Maybe it will work for yours!
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 8, 2002 11:39:16 GMT -5
Testify, my brother! Testify before The Bard Ganymede, I think that sounds like a fascinating idea. I think the two most important things to teach students in an introductory class are that Shakespeare was intended to be performed (thus there is more happening than they are reading) and that there is much room for individual interpretation. Shakespeare doesn't necessarily invite unadulterated reader response, but it does (intentionally, I believe) leave various interpretations of character and action available to an audience. Praise The Bard.
|
|
|
Post by litluver on Oct 13, 2002 21:08:37 GMT -5
Well Shaxper, don't have a heart attack! I have been so busy that I haven't had any time to jump on here. I know this post is a few months old, but since I do teach high school Literature I thought I would add or just amen some of what has been said. I do teach like Ganymede's teacher. I like the students to be involved in what we are studying. As a matter of fact we are starting on the Renaissance tomorrow! When we get started on a play (and I can't decide which one yet)- we do lots of acting, panel discussions, projects, etc... I have taught like this for several years, and the ones that have graduated and gone on to college have come back to me and thanked me for instilling some love and some knowledge of the Bard in them. That to me is worth it all! I just want to pass on a small amount of what he is about. I"m sure they will gain a greater appreciation for him and his work in college if I can NOT be a boring English teacher in high school!! I also teach the comedies. We actually put on AYLI a few years ago. I haven't taught any of the histories yet. ONe of my problems is that I teach homeschoolers, and we only get to meet once a week. I don't feel like we can get it all done! Well, to answer the question that first started the discussion---- I really don't think any of the plays should be off limit. Some of them are more desirable (for me) to teach first. ( AYLI, Macbeth, Hamlet, 12th,R&J) I'll try and stay up on all the new stuff!! Between homeschooling my kids, doing real estate and teaching Am. LIt and British Lit-- I don't seem to have any extra time anymore!! Sherree
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 13, 2002 23:21:37 GMT -5
Well Shaxper, don't have a heart attack! Ack!...Oof!...Urk!! Glad to see you back, Sherree! Don't sweat it. We all had busy summers, and I'm sure it's been a lot of work getting back into the swing of things this past month. In all honesty, the board's been a little slow lately, but you can help us change that Your classroom sounds very exciting, by the way! I'd love to hear more about it, especially the panel discussions and projects. Great to see you back! ;D
|
|
|
Post by inhiding on Dec 2, 2002 18:02:52 GMT -5
I am currently a freshmen in a private high school, so my experience may differ from that found in a public high school. I love studying and reading his work in school. A few months ago the entire high school read Taming of the Shrew then went to see it in a theatrical performance. It is a yearly tradition to read and see a Shakespeare play I hear (I am new to the school). So, it entirley depends but his plays are some of the most interesting things to me.
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Dec 2, 2002 22:36:52 GMT -5
Sounds like a great tradition. What did you think of TOTS?
|
|
|
Post by inhiding on Dec 3, 2002 19:18:22 GMT -5
Sounds like a great tradition. What did you think of TOTS? i enjoyed it, we went over every bit with the teacher so it was much easier to understand.
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Dec 4, 2002 8:33:38 GMT -5
How'd they handle the final speach? Did they include the whole part in the begining with Christopher Sly, the drunk that gets dressed up as a Lord who's having the story of TOTS told to him? Only certain versions include this, but it can have a dramatic effect on staging and interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by inhiding on Dec 4, 2002 15:45:30 GMT -5
Yes, all of the versions (we had many) included the Sly part. I actually wrote an essay on Katherine's monolouge.
|
|