Thou shall debate about Shakespeare
Bruno Shapiro:
Reading Shakespeare’s works is, as he described life in “King John,” “as tedious as a twice-told tale, vexing the dull ear of a drowsy man,” or, plainly, repetitive and boring. The California Department of Education requires that public high school students learn to study and analyze a variety of Shakespeare’s works as part of the English Language Arts curriculum. I hear my peers sigh and complain when we hear the dreaded word, “Shakespeare.” Teachers play audio readings of his plays, and we use adaptations and websites that simplify them.
A primary reason that my teachers have shared as to why we must study Shakespeare is to appear as “educated” and “scholarly” to the world around us by understanding acclaimed literature and pop culture references. However, I find that having read a popular play in high school is an arbitrary measure of intelligence. Rather, high school education should aid in students’ learning abilities for their future. However, having already studied two of Shakespeare’s plays by my sophomore year, I have yet to learn how to decipher his works independently, a disappointment that I attribute not to my teachers but to the limited time to efficiently study them.
As a pinnacle part of the development of the English language and culture, Shakespeare’s works tell enticing stories of love, tragedy and war. It is a shame how what were once performed as such whimsical, emotional, comical stories are made boring by our classes. I have never been taught to comprehend Early Modern English. Rather, we use context clues, external resources, or teachers spoon-feed us what each phrase means. Therefore, without the ability to decipher Early Modern English independently, I have not learned a new skill; I have merely been told a story.
Although the themes of his plays are universal, the language prevents students from forming natural connections, which could be found in numerous other pieces of literature.
Overall, the way that Shakespeare is often taught in high school fails to enrich learning in the way that it is intended to. It would be more effective to read one play or a collection of passages and study the etymology and history of Shakespeare’s works, to permit time to study other influential authors. Though it is “fair” to study Shakespeare, it is “foul” to study his works to the extent that they are.
Juliet Schohn:
Alongside my many modern volumes in my bookshelf sit three well-worn Shakespearean works. I remember my first; “Much Ado About Nothing,” stumbling over the language, and my favorite; “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” becoming wholly enthralled in the journey. Each play felt like a quest, and arduous ones they were, though the reward was always well worth it.
I will not pretend that reading Shakespeare is easy, but as anything, it becomes less challenging every play you read. Profoundly contributing to my ability to decipher his tales was the aid of my English teachers. They discouraged the use of modern translations and instead taught me to struggle with interpreting the language in its raw form, to make inferences from the text and historical knowledge to decode the storylines. In this way, I compare reading Shakespeare to learning a new language: the struggle to recognize words and patterns and the victory that comes with being able to read and comprehend an entire passage. However, diverging from the study of foreign languages, reading Shakespeare provides insight into the shaping of modern-day English, inventing over 400 words still used today.
Particularly relevant to the lives of high schoolers are the struggles of Shakespeare’s teenaged characters. Countless adaptations like “She’s the Man” and “10 Things I Hate About You” prove the staying power of these stories: comedies and tragedies, about love, loss, war and vengeance. While I prefer the original text, I recognize the value of modern interpretations in their ability to draw high school aged students into drama hidden behind the antiquated language of Shakespeare’s plays.
Reading the original text should not, however, be disregarded. I’ve had English classes where students are encouraged to use a side-by-side “translation” of the work alongside the real words. I see the value in footnotes to define archaic words, but part of the joy in Shakespeare lies in the inherent struggle to understand. Rich and complex language requires readers to make inferences and improves their ability to analyze text, aiding English students in further studies of contemporary literary works.
Although an old tradition, decoding Shakespeare as a high school student reaps many benefits. Afterall, how can we attempt to analyze modern English if we do not understand its Elizabethan origins that gave rise to many dramatic and linguistic forms still used today?
