Computer Technology vs Shakespeare literature

[LizardKing]

This is, of course, the other problem.

People fail to see past the language to actually what they are meant to be studying, which is literature, the STORY, not the language - which is why literature and language are separate, and you don't study Shakespeare for language.

If people are disenchanted with the book then they will quickly miss the story and any deeper meaning.
The story's of Shakespeare are neither great or engrossing. Plus there are far better examples of books that invoke the imagination and with the insight into moral dilemmas.

 

[semi-pro waster]

English should be taught at GCSE as part of the core curriculum. Just not English lit in anything like its current form.

Ok, so it's just a question of what in the way of English should be taught up to 16 that we probably disagree on rather than that it should be taught. That's fair enough, I still think that it's absolutely vital that we should teach English as well as we possibly can - the British historically aren't very good at foreign languages either but there's very few excuses for being poor at our native tongue.

The story's of Shakespeare are neither great or engrossing.

That's a pretty bold statement considering you're talking about a man whose stories have endured (and been endured by) generations. As I've said I'm not overly fond of Shakespeare but even I wouldn't deny the greatness of some of his stories.

 

[WingZero30]

That's a pretty bold statement considering you're talking about a man whose stories have endured (and been endured by) generations. As I've said I'm not overly fond of Shakespeare but even I wouldn't deny the greatness of some of his stories.

His stories may be good but they are overhyped. I am sure there are likely to be many more authors who may be even better than shakespeare but we just don't hear about them or they have simply disappeared from the history. How about worldwide authors. I am sure that middle east and far east must have also produced brilliant authors in the history but we also don't have enough information about them.

 

[BlackCoat2k10]

If teenage boys are finding Shakespeare dull, that's the teacher at fault IMHO - there is plenty of Shakespeare which if explained properly fits squarely into teen boy humour

Truely spoken. I remember my first look at Shakespear it really did look boring but due to an amazing English teacher he managed to bring to life an enthusiasm with it that I've never managed to get again.

 

[Fuzz]

What a stupid idea.
Shakespeare is literary art and computers are technology based.
Two completely separate subjects.

Teach both and allow the students to decide what they wish to follow in life.

One thing I saw very recently is a couple of TED video on schools not allowing creativity..
Very thought provoking videos too!

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html

 

[Camoe]

Like l33t, or ye old

 

[Davies_M]

This is, of course, the other problem.

People fail to see past the language to actually what they are meant to be studying, which is literature, the STORY, not the language - which is why literature and language are separate, and you don't study Shakespeare for language.

Actually, a lot of courses are combined English lit+lang which involves a shakespeare text compared to a more modern day one.

For my A level I done 'Othello' then comparing it to 'A view from the Bridge'

 

[Fuzz]

For my A level I done 'Othello' then comparing it to 'A view from the Bridge'

You done well

Or maybe you DID "Othello", then COMPARED it to "A view from the bridge"

 

[Davies_M]

You done well

Or maybe you DID "Othello", then COMPARED it to "A view from the bridge"

Silence! I'm ill, tired and smelling of beer.

 

[Haggisman]

The teaching of many of the skills you mention are just as well served in other subjects such as history, geography, biology, economics etc which also require interpreting information and drawing conclusions. For me it also happens to significantly more interesting than reading Shakespeare or any of the other creative literature found in schools.

I got very little benefit from English lit. Despite this I've achieved a lot since both academically and professionally. It's not something I miss or something I'd think about taking up again. I finished school 15 years ago.

I've taken the liberty of bolding the important part. Of course the question remains. Would you have had any interest in, or bothered to study ANY of these subjects with no prior experience, and without having been "forced" to in some way? (Either by parents or by school)

In some way, teaching these subjects at school is not so much "forcing you"; more a case of giving you a small taster of what each of the subjects entails so that you can then make an educated decision on which you wish to pursue further.

As an aside. A great many scientific journals and historical accounts are written in "outdated" English. While it may not seem so at the time, studying "outdated" literature at a young age can help you prepare to study these when you find they are more to your taste.

The story's of Shakespeare are neither great or engrossing.

I find this part strangely ironic

Also, I disagree

 

[Killerkebab]

I would also find it very interesting to know that if shakespeare was alive today would he have been as successfull as he was during his time. Would he have been able to grasp computing technology which plays a vital role in our lives today. I say that based on the assumption that shakespeare must have been very in tune with the society of his time and the things that were considered important in driving that particular society.
Also things were much simpler during his lifetime than they are now. I haven't read many of his works apart from hamlet and romeo and juliet but he must have written on the condition of society during his lifetime. So if he were alive today would he have been able to produce a masterpiece reflecting his views on the condition of the current society such as the economic climate?

You're placing a very big importance on computers. I'd wager if Shakespeare were about today (as in, born in ~1980 say) he'd have enough raw talent to create some cracking films or even theater.

His stories may be good but they are overhyped. I am sure there are likely to be many more authors who may be even better than shakespeare but we just don't hear about them or they have simply disappeared from the history. How about worldwide authors. I am sure that middle east and far east must have also produced brilliant authors in the history but we also don't have enough information about them.

In my brief stint in secondary school in France I learnt about a man called Molière, Arguably France's greatest playwright.
Another play most French teenagers learn about around the same time as British teenagers learn about Shakespeare is Cyrano de Bergerac

As for the Middle East, maybe you've heard of Scheherazade, the storyteller of One Thousand and one Nights?

As you can see, every culture has its legends, whether in literature, the sciences, or whichever subject you care to name. You happen to be educated in Britain, and therefore you hear about Britain's legacy to the world of literature (and it is a hell of a legacy). Maybe one day you'll meet me and we can talk about similarities and differences between Molière and Shakespeare's works

Surely you can agree that teaching everybody literature is a good idea? If you can't agree with me that it is an interesting thing to learn about, can you at least see that the skills someone may pick up from learning the subject are invaluable?

 

[Pestilence]

It's about teaching the literary history of your Country, and in turn increasing your own literacy. Not to say that an interest in, and exposure to, a wide level of creative works increases your own awareness and social skills beyond merely focusing on a single vocation.

Abandoning the works of Shakespeare et al in schools would be disastrous. A meagre pittance of students from many schools leave barely literate as it is!

 

[Mr^B]

Actually, a lot of courses are combined English lit+lang which involves a shakespeare text compared to a more modern day one.

For my A level I done 'Othello' then comparing it to 'A view from the Bridge'

I was talking about at GCSE level.

 

[Mr^B]

If people are disenchanted with the book then they will quickly miss the story and any deeper meaning.
The story's of Shakespeare are neither great or engrossing. Plus there are far better examples of books that invoke the imagination and with the insight into moral dilemmas.

That's a valid opinion of course, not one shared by the vast majority of the English speaking world - but a valid opinion nonetheless.

 

[Stretch]

I've taken the liberty of bolding the important part. Of course the question remains. Would you have had any interest in, or bothered to study ANY of these subjects with no prior experience, and without having been "forced" to in some way? (Either by parents or by school)

Yes, I enjoyed most of the syllabus at secondary school particularly humanities, science and maths. I took economics as an additional option because it was something of personal interest to me.

There are large numbers of students (mainly boys) that find English lit a massive turn off. I fall into that category. The martial covered in English secondary school just doesn't interest me in the slightest, and I admit I've never been reader of creative literature. It's been no great loss.

I don't see the need for a lesson that involves the whole class reading the same piece of literature that in itself contains no useful or intresting information.

 

[platypus]

I'm a mathematician at heart, but learning Shakespeare was not only my most enjoyable subject, it taught me confidence through acting and public speaking, amongst other things,

 

[taz488]

why are these even related?

english literature replaced by an IT diploma, good one.

 

[Voltar]

If people are disenchanted with the book then they will quickly miss the story and any deeper meaning.
The story's of Shakespeare are neither great or engrossing. Plus there are far better examples of books that invoke the imagination and with the insight into moral dilemmas.

Did you struggle at English perchance? Reading your posts makes me think you might have and that you excel at IT and science. No shame in that at all (and not an attack either), but you do realise that you're touching on an important debate don't you. Subjectivity and Subjectivity vs Objectivity.
Art vs Science. The age old debate of the Utilitarians. What Is To Be Done?

I don't know. However, putting myself in your shoes I'd have wanted four languages and four literary courses as well as music and philosophy on the compulsory agenda with Maths and Sciences optional: reversing the roles and relative importance of the arts and the sciences. I hated maths and struggled with it and didn't really see the point in doing that or chemistry or physics. Where is the individual developed in just science?

At such a basic level as GSCE, none of the IT, Maths and Science related subjects give you any room to think for yourself, to have your own interpretation of things. You may get x to equal 2 with one tiny difference, but that's not the point. The answer is always the same, and if you don't understand it you have to understand it "because it is". Or that you can only use these set formulae to do this set function. Functional yes. Has a purpose and practical application, yes.

However, if we submitted to the suggestions of replacing Shakespeare with IT, we would be losing something far more than a 400 year old author's works. He wrote in the most fruitful and rich time of theatre in Europe (some civilized person mentioned Moliere and Cyrano of France [Moliere wasn't active at the same time, but in the same era] or how about Lope de Vega or Tirso de Molina?! Two exceptional talents active at the same time as Shakespeare who no one has heard of). However by omitting Shakespeare as a taught subject, we would be omitting the Arts.

We would be consigning the Arts into obscurity and disrepute because they are not functional vis a vis our technological demands. This argument has been dealt with before (150 years before in Russia for instance) and always comes up.

The fact is, without an Arts based subject which is universally acceptable, palatable and understood, children will not be encouraged to think for themselves in different ways. Nor will they be so encouraged to think in their own unique way. When an answer is a given and the method is a given, where is the freethinking in that? When the theme is subjective, it encourages opinion, debate and thought. It also encourages pupils to listen to one another. Shakespeare and his contemporaries didn't write for just the artsy folk or high-brow members of Elizabethan society. He wrote for everyone.

To discount Shakespeare by saying it's outdated and no longer applicable, smacks of (I'm crediting you, those who wish it away, with the intelligence to have understood it and made rational opinions of it) utilitarian narrow minds. If you go back and read them again, with people who actually are bright and give a **** you'll see it differently. Shakespeare and his contemporaries are some of the funnies authors you'll ever encounter. They are also deeply philosophical and raise all sorts of ethical questions. Furthermore their use of language was pioneering and had never been seen before, nor will it be seen again. They were also the pioneers of stagecraft and the use of the theatre as a part of the play itself and the involvement of the crowd within the play.


There is nothing worse than poorly taught literature. I can imagine in some schools the horrors that must await in the classroom for the able arts enthusiast. Poorly taught Shakespeare along with unwilling students ("because it's so oooold innit? It's useless miss, no one talks like dat no more") is a deathblow to the work, and with that will never be properly received by the students.


If you give it a try you might just find some things in it which you enjoy. I really hope so.

















Yes I'm an Arts Student

 

[Angilion]

A lot can be done with the way a subject is taught. The English of Shakespeare is very outdated. A modern reader will not understand the slang or any cultural references, even if the language is modernised a bit.

That doesn't have to matter. In my school, it was mandatory to take either Latin or classical Greek to O level, i.e. 5 years of study. I chose Latin. Not because it interested me, but simply because it used the same alphabet as English and Greek didn't. For that reason, I decided it would be the easier choice from two boring irrelevancies. Latin is certainly more outdated than Shakespeare's English. Boring, boring, boring.

Thanks to an excellent teacher. I found it interesting. He made Latin fascinating to children. I would cheerfully have dropped another subject and doubled up the Latin. It was far more interesting than French, although I knew I might well have a direct use for French and never would have a direct use for Latin.

If it can be done for Latin, it can be done for Shakespearian English.

 

[platypus]

Thus do I ever make my fool my purse:
For I mine own gain'd knowledge should profane,
If I would time expend with such a snipe.
But for my sport and profit. I hate the Moor:
And it is thought abroad, that 'twixt my sheets
He has done my office: I know not if't be true;
But I, for mere suspicion in that kind,
Will do as if for surety. He holds me well;
The better shall my purpose work on him.
Cassio's a proper man: let me see now:
To get his place and to plume up my will
In double knavery--How, how? Let's see:--
After some time, to abuse Othello's ear
That he is too familiar with his wife.
He hath a person and a smooth dispose
To be suspected, framed to make women false.
The Moor is of a free and open nature,
That thinks men honest that but seem to be so,
And will as tenderly be led by the nose
As asses are.
I have't. It is engender'd. Hell and night
Must bring this monstrous birth to the world's light.​

And despite hundreds of years of trying, no one has written a villain, quite as well as Shakespeare.