If you could design the English Curriculum..

edited 16th Apr '12 3:11:58 AM by LordGro

Then we disagree on what goes in there. I simply don't feel that lit is a necessary course as it's mostly the history of a subject (which should be optional), rather than the subject itself.

As a comparison: knowing how evolution works is important to biology, knowing Lamarckian evolution and each version proposed other than the modern theory and the name Charles Darwin are purely optional.

That first part is avoiding both questions. Putting that aside, your logic is still more than a little faulty: Shakespeare's work is, love it or hate it, an exemplar of the use of words in a given context to mean multiple things, hence giving in the mere reading of it a number of lessons about the mechanics and capacity of the English language for use and misuse in far less time (and, being a direct example, more effectively) than if one were to outline those principles flatly. Beyond the simple mechanistic purpose of this, educating a person in the potential double meanings and duplicities of language in such a direct manner manages to enforce certain essential critical thinking lessons easily applicable in the real world: How a person can use obfuscating language in a contract to cheat you out of something, how a political figure can lie about their policies without actually saying anything factually untrue and so on.

In other words, the purpose of teaching literature is not essential for cultural reasons, but for the fact that it fosters insight.

As far as Lamarck goes, how about those epigenetics, eh? Anyway, when you know where things came from, it's a lot easier to make sense of the world in general and communicate with others. "Right, yeah, and Brutus is an honorable man" is a pretty snappy way to call out a lip-service-paying, double-talking politico, for instance. Even when Shakespeare's wrong, it's good to understand the image that, say, Ricardian historians are contending with.

Basically, it's about cultural literacy. For more, read just about anything E.D. Hirsch ever wrote.

And that's an even better argument, yes.

edited 16th Apr '12 9:46:47 AM by DomaDoma

In the case of language, the history of the subject IS the subject to a large degree. Shakespeare's example has shaped our language to such an extent that to be ignorant of him is to be less than literate. in fact, it renders one less than a full member of Western civilization. The Bard and the Authorized Version are civilizational touchstones without which the allusions of most literate men are simply gobbledygook. Their deep inherence in the West's fabric requires a man to be conversible with them.

So one needn't approve everything about Shakespeare, but anyone utterly innocent of him by adulthood is a kind of savage, and in any conversation above the level of "can I take your bags?", deserves roughly as much of a hearing.

What you and people like you fail to grasp is that the people who went to see Shakespeare's plays when they first came out (and as such are the only people who really should have their opinions considered as having any validity whatsoever) went to see them to have a good night out with their mates, get drunk afterwards - and during watching them - lets be honest and then go home. They were not seen at the time of release as having any great intellectual worth and indeed some of them were seen as politically dangerous by the ruling classes of Elizabethan and Stuart England.

It is only since long after his death that there has been built this great big edifice of Shakespeare being this great literary figure.

Calling anyone a savage because they do not like your pet dramatist is an insult.

^^What do you mean by "aware of Shakespeare" exactly? It's pretty much impossible for anyone not to know of him in modern Western society, even if they haven't read or watched his plays. I disagree strongly with the idea that anyone who hasn't read or watched any Shakespeare is a "savage" or "lesser". It's exactly this attitude that puts people off him.

^I'd argue this is largely untrue. It's difficult to ascertain exactly what Shakespeare's reputation was during the time due to the paucity of remaining criticism, but we can conclude a number of things. Shakespeare wrote for a broad demographic that included both "the commons" and the upper classes. His company, after all, were given patents by the Royal Chamberlain and the King himself, with instructions to perform for the court quite regularly.

It's true that plays were generally considered to be "lesser" entertainment during the period; however, this changed in part due to Shakespeare's works. Traditionally, folios and other printed reproductions were reserved for poetry and more serious literature (I wish I could recall a contemporary critic's comments on Ben Jonson's collected works; it was something like "Mr Jonson confuses work with play"). Yet Shakespeare's works were not only printed in a folio and reprinted a few years after, there were also numerous poor reproductions made by people scribing down lines during performances. Surely, this demonstrates the esteem he was held in even during the time.

I contest the idea that entertainment and analysis or enjoyment at a deeper level are mutually exclusive. Regardless, there are some mentions of Shakespeare in critical works during the period, so he at least attracted some literary attention. It's true that his literary reputation has increased since the Elizabethan period, but it was hardly built on nothing. After all, it was only sixteen years after his death when John Milton wrote his poem "On Shakespeare", which surely ranks as some of the greatest praise anyone could give (actual readability of the poem aside ).

As for only the opinions of his contemporaries having merit - this goes against most of what we learn in English, or indeed, the other arts. In studying the arts we constantly re-evaluate works, because reactions change due to context. It demonstrates startling connections between works, a history of influences, and shifting significance. Why should my opinion of Jan Vermeer's skill be considered unworthy because he was largely unknown during his time? I can look at them today, and consider them beautiful. I can, and do, read Shakespeare's works voluntarily and I enjoy them.

I don't understand why you feel it's irritating or offensive for a person to consider Shakespeare to be the best dramatist (or poet, or general author) ever. It's not like they're saying "no other author is good" - merely that they like Shakespeare most, which is an opinion and as defensible a one as "I think author X in the time period since Shakespeare is the best". In my opinion, Vladimir Nabokov and P. G. Wodehouse are the greatest English prose stylists, and I don't think anyone would be angry at me for saying that. It's clear that I don't mean no one else has written good prose before or after them.

Deboss, I'm actually curious as to what your ideal English curriculum would be. Are you thinking of something along the lines of how non-English languages are taught in schools, with a heavy emphasis on grammar and utility?

"I don't understand why you feel it's irritating or offensive for a person to consider Shakespeare to be the best dramatist (or poet, or general author) ever. It's not like they're saying "no other author is good" - merely that they like Shakespeare most, which is an opinion and as defensible a one as "I think author X in the time period since Shakespeare is the best"."

No, no it is not. Sorry but when an opinion gets rammed down your throat as being objective fact for decades from just about every over paid talking head in the arts establishment or theatre luvvy from the Royal Shakespeare Company and beyond, and you are not allowed to have and voice a contrary opinion and have it be taken seriously at all, it stops being defensible and starts being actionable.

On this issue I shall defer to Dr. Johnson, which is always the wisest of courses:

So you might need to design a time machine and invite the good doctor to take it outside, as well.

It's also worth remembering that the Grand Cham was no uncritical fan of Shakespeare at every point. His thoughts are merely the capstone of centuries of learned posterity's consensus, which isn't exactly the same thing as a declaration of "objective fact." It's close enough for the purposes of designing a curriculum, though. And it's enough to place the burden of proving one ought to be taken seriously squarely on the naysayers.

^^I can see how annoying it might be for someone who holds a contrary opinion, but how does that make an individual's opinion of Shakespeare less defensible?

Also, you're seriously annoyed by the fact that everyone from the RSC really likes Shakespeare? They're the Royal Shakespeare Company!

edited 18th Apr '12 12:47:56 AM by Yuanchosaan

They are the mouthpiece for every luvvy in British theatre land who would love nothing better than to be amongst their number. They are the Establishment. And I hate them. Not as much as I hate all but one of the main British political parties but I hate them nonetheless. They proselytize works of a man that should be in all justice left to rot in his grave and they have been given the Royal title to hide behind. And to add insult to injury they are a registered charity. Which means money goes to them that could be better spent funding cat sanctuaries or similar.

To paraphrase slightly from your pet dramatist, a plague upon all their houses.

^All right then. You clearly feel much more strongly about it than I do, and I thought I liked the RSC very much.

Here's a question instead (and because I ought to re-rail this thread after helping to derail it so badly): what plays would you teach in high school English courses from a literary perspective, and why? Let's say 1-2 a year, for years 7-12.

On a completely unrelated note, your use of "luvvie" makes me think of three things: Stephen Fry, little old ladies and the exceptionally silly phrase "Lord-luv-a-duck!" It makes for a very amusing image.

edited 18th Apr '12 3:41:48 AM by Yuanchosaan

From a dramatic perspective, it shouldn't be Shakespeare in high school. Unless you hold stringent auditions.

To exercise students' theme-spotting muscles, I'd do something by Sondheim. Plenty of possible perspectives on the big human questions, none of which require the teacher to conjure up some homoerotic Christ imagery out of the play's individual Bible Code.

Using luvvie is my way of sticking a metaphorical boot into the groin of an arts establishment that I despise. Besides, I didn't come up with it. They did. Mind you, since I do not think that any of the people that the word would apply to, in my opinion anyway, hang round tvtropes much, I also do not think me calling them it would bother them overmuch.

Plays? I am not a fan much of plays. Or of putting them in slots to suit a curriculum. I would either over- or under estimate the critical skills and literacy of the students. Though if pushed I would make a couple of suggestions - "Death of a Salesman" would be on the list. It is a work that never goes out of relevance. "The Royal Hunt of the Sun" would also be a good choice to introduce American history from a perspective of events that took place before most Americans would say that that history started. Its relevance to current events could be questionable but there are many forms of imperialism, and many forms of invasion.

Yuppers. Fiction books are there to try and promote literacy, not the other way around. Developing it as a hobby is neat and all, but hardly necessary.

If I wanted, I could say that not knowing how to drive a Model T means one is not truly able to drive cars, due to its influence on car design. It's just as true as having never read Shakespeare means your illiterate.

edited 20th Apr '12 12:56:40 AM by Deboss

Fuck learning how to drive a Model T Ford. Give me a stick shift with clutch, brake and accelerator pedals in that order. Oh, and electronic ignition rather than a hand crank.

It means a lot of crap goes over your head, though.

As for the argument that Shakespeare was a popular hack when he was alive, well, Edgar Allan Poe was an unpopular hack whose epitaph was written by a guy who really had it out for him because no one else would bother, and yet you can learn a lot from him, particularly about suspense, poetic diction, and pre-Holmesian mystery.

edited 20th Apr '12 4:22:44 AM by DomaDoma

I could take Shakespeare or leave him, but the film version of the Taming of the Shrew with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton is hilarious.

Plays that should be looked at? Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw, with someone who can actually put on the accents involved. It's a really interesting play that subverts several of the aspects that usually are present in a story like that.

Oh, Pygmalion and My Fair Lady are basically the same play. My Fair Lady is just the musical adaptation.

Mmm, apples and oranges, methinks.

Automobile design (as with engineering in general, chemistry, biology, and other forms of natural philosophy) systematically builds upon its predecessors; theoretically, at least, each new model should be an improvement on the previous. The field progresses by design—e.g., any modern, ordinary cell-phone engineer knows more about thermodynamics than Lord Kelvin did. Any life-sciences major knows more than Gregor Mendel. People admire such pioneers, but studying them isn't necessary to do physics or biology.

The humanities are another story. You can't systematically, measurably improve the arts in a steadily-increasing arrow—there's no Moore's Law here. For reasons often hard to understand, you get artistic peaks and valleys at unpredictable times, from unpredictable sources. However, the arts that a civilization produces are part of that civilization's cultural history, and not drawing upon it where one can is inherently weakening. Not knowing or caring about it makes for an incompetent workman indeed, and a largely unqualified audience.

And to be fair, you're kind of right about the final semantic issue: "subliterate" would be fairer than "illiterate." The latter word implies that one lacks the elementary ability to scrawl and recognize most words of one's native language, which I don't contend at all.

edited 20th Apr '12 11:29:58 AM by Jhimmibhob

On the topic of poetry, what do people here think of the use of audiobooks? I have very bad eyesight so reading novels is pretty much out for me unless I want to spend half of my life on just one of them. As such I've become very used to using audiobooks for all my literature, including poems.

I think we should be honest with ourselves and admit that, no matter how well you teach, there will always be kids who just don't care. It's not their fault, some people just don't have a taste for reading. As such all the beautiful language in the world will just make their eyes glAze over.

But if you have a collection of poetry performed by a talented and memorable narrator, I think it can really help to bring the stuff to life. I know it helps me to "get in the characters" when I have a voice. It's like Sherlock Holmes where I now hear Jeremy Brett in my head and so the character is so much more alive. Well, he was an actor who played Sherlock but you get my meaning I hope.

And moving on from there, I would have really liked if I was introduced to Romantic literature more in high school. From what I remember, the only thing we read of that type was Rappaccini's Daughter. A nice little story but not nearly enough. I identify very much with the Romantic Movement so I'm biased but I still think it would benefit young minds to be introduced to the likes of Keats for poetry and Hugo for novels.

edited 20th Apr '12 4:04:39 PM by Nikkolas

Good call on the Romantics. I'd add Coleridge into the mix as well, and Stendhal or Goethe would be equally good alternatives to Hugo. It'd be tempting to include some Pushkin in translation—Boris Godunov is an underrated classic.

Could we have mercy and abridge the Hugo? Unless the teacher thinks French history is more important than their actual subject and wants to spend the whole semester on one book, that is.

edited 21st Apr '12 4:51:51 PM by DomaDoma

Well I guess you could skip certain chapters in Les Mis. Don't need the stuff on slang or Waterloo. Well you need the last part about Waterloo since it involves Marius' father.

I personally found a lot of the history fascinating though.

The problem with massive and long works like that is that they take up a lot of time, time that could be used for other things. In general, I feel that a wide variety of short works or excerpts from different styles, authors and time periods is to be preferred over an in-depth look at just a limited range of literature.

That approach also has more of the utility aspect Deboss is arguing for. Being exposed to different styles and forms of a language is beneficial for ones skills in using and understanding it.

Based on what?

Acceptable, we're teaching people how to use it in day to day lives. If they want to be a professional, they need to get special training in the subject.

As for literacy, it's purely a way of acquiring information. Enjoying it is not the least bit necessary, just as specific knowledge of something isn't necessary. The history of a subject is not the subject, and far from important when it comes to understanding the governing principles. If there's no governing principles, there's no objectivity. If there's no objectivity, there's no point to adding it to a general curriculum, as it's just a pile of subjective crap.

edited 23rd Apr '12 2:26:15 AM by Deboss