Why do we still study Shakespear's work?

[Berethos08]

Out of curiosity, OP, are you at a large college with large class sizes? I went to a small school (about 1300 total students) and most classes sizes consisted of 5-10 students (and no TAs, thank god), and not once did I experience a time when I felt like any professor was simply handing me a book and expecting me to do it all on my own. I've not heard good things regarding how many early classes are handled in larger schools.

In depth discussions, even in the law/business classes I took as electives (three consecutive semesters of business law, then constitutional law, then criminal law...was more entertaining that it sounds, actually), were the norm, both among the students and with the teacher.

[semaphore]

I am personally disgusted by the Education System in Western Cultures. Making people think that being able to recall useless information (Such as Shakespeare) makes them smart or intelligent.

Nobody studies Shakespeare so that they can "recall" it. If that's how you were taught English, then it is a failing of your teacher. Don't extrapolate that to the entire education system, much less every western culture.

I'm all for the Arts, they bring in amazing amounts of income to any country, but I just wish people would stop kidding themselves about what makes them smart. I would personally stop teaching children this stuff, it doesn't help them at all. That time is better spent teaching them life skills & business.

Spoken like someone ignorant of how much of our everyday life is derived from these classics.

---------- Post added 2012-04-10 at 03:42 PM ----------

Schools, agencies, governments all look to the past instead of focusing on the present / future, they should tailor all educations from grade 4 - 5 towards what people want to pursue, without all the "mandatory" classes.

We look to the past to prepare for the future.

The only place where studying that ancient romanticized garbage is if your studying literature, in any other form of education it won't do jack for your carrier or pursuit thereof.

Unless you go into a field that requires critical thinking. Which is just about every career not based on physical skills.

[Atrea]

I know we're not supposed to correct people's spelling and stuff, but this has been going on since page one, and literally dozens of people are still doing it...

It's Shakespeare, not Shakespear. For all of those touting the virtues of literacy and then spelling his name wrong - for shame.

[Maharishi]

It's Shakespeare, not Shakespear. For all of those touting the virtues of literacy and then spelling his name wrong - for shame.

Chrome spellcheck has ruined me. If it doesn't squiggle, or if it's a proper noun with a squiggle, it must be correct.

[semaphore]

It's Shakespeare, not Shakespear. For all of those touting the virtues of literacy and then spelling his name wrong - for shame.

I'm too suggestible to the posts I'm quoting

[Atrea]

Chrome spellcheck has ruined me. If it doesn't squiggle, or if it's a proper noun with a squiggle, it must be correct.

Well, some blame rests on the OP as well. I'm sure people saw the title, saw no one correcting it, and figured "Well that must be how it's spelled!"

I'm too suggestible to the posts I'm quoting

Oh I wasn't trying to single you out; you're definitely not alone.

[asher1611]

In one of my classes we are reading Othello, and for our final we have to write a 2000w research paper on it. I don't understand why we are reading and studying such an old piece of work that is basically written in a foreign language. I get that they are very well written stories for his time,but shouldn't we be reading a more relevant re-write of the story or just a more relevant story in general. I.E. something that my generation can understand without looking of the definition of every other word because we don't normally use it in that context.

Edit: I'm putting this here because people are obviously just reading the title and responding to it (as I'm writing this I'm realizing how counter productive it is because the people it's for aren't going to read it). I am not saying that I want to read Twilight, Harry Potter, or Transformers book, There are hundreds of current and well written books from our generation that can teach the same lessons as Shakespeare.

I am also in no way complaining about reading Shakespeare, all I wanted was to get other peoples take on why we still study 400+ year old literature.

I used to teach English. High school English (in USA that is around ages 13-19). I would get asked this question a lot and see a lot of other teachers melt down at similar questions (some of them with responses similar to what I'm sure is in this thread).

The answer is that the works are relevant to our time. In addition, it's good and healthy to be challenged, that's part of learning (my students sometimes groaned at the 2nd part of that -- amazingly parents would get very angry at me about teaching stuff that was "too hard"). It's also something that was meant to be performed, so we would perform it.

Just throwing a broad swath at something and saying "the lessons of Shakespeare" is entirely too broad. It's not like his story has a moral. There's not some "big" thing you're supposed to learn from the play. That's part of the problem: the play is meant to be performed and to be experienced by the audience. Just sitting and reading it doesn't give the whole picture at all.

My strategy when teaching works from Shakespeare was to connect them to student's lives. If there is one things students have a grasp of, it is themselves. I'm not entirely sure what pedagogical benefit a 2000 word research paper gives for learning and understanding the essence of the play (and 2000 words isn't really a lot either to be honest). But if you want three simple things that you should be able to get from the play, here's a list:

1) Othello is a people story. It's all about relationships. Who seems to be chummy with who. Why is everyone so trusting of Iago? How is Othello both strong and weak (this is one of Shakespeare's better plays for examining internal struggle)
2) How would have the audience understood the story. Remember, Othello was written for people with far greater education than you and for people with practically no education at all. What parts of the play would appeal to those with higher education? What would appeal to the groundlings? This is where seeing the play instead of or in addition to reading it is very important.
3) Despite there being, at one point, 8 different productions of Othello by other authors in England at the time Shakespeare wrote the play, only Shakespeare's survives. Why would his survive and others not? The literature is over 400 years old (as you said), yet there are qualities about it that make it survive. What do you think they are?

The language is just a barrier. I remember being baffled by the Canterbury Tales in high school but finding them hilarious in college. Once you pick up the language, you'll figure it out.

---------- Post added 2012-04-10 at 01:38 PM ----------

Oh, and if you think Shakespeare is writing in a foreign language, you should check out what English was like before he was alive. Shakespeare wrote in modern english. don't believe me? Here are two examples, one old english and one middle english (of the same passage):

Old English

Soþlice on þam dagum wæs geworden gebod fram þam casereAugusto, þæt eall ymbehwyrft wære tomearcod. Þeos tomearcodneswæs æryst geworden fram þam deman Syrige Cirino. And ealle hig eodon,and syndrige ferdon on hyra ceastre. Ða ferde Iosep fram Galilea of þæreceastre Nazareth on Iudeisce ceastre Dauides, seo is genemned Bethleem, for þam þe he wæs of Dauides huse and hirede; þæt he ferde mid Marianþe him beweddod wæs, and wæs geeacnod. Soþlice wæs geworden þa hi þar wæron, hire dagas wæron gefyllede þæt heo cende. And heo cende hyre frumcennedan sunu, and hine mid cildclaþum bewand, and hine on binne alede, for þam þe hig næfdon rum on cumena huse. And hyrdas wæron on þam ylcan rice waciende, and nihtwæccan healdende ofer heora heorda. Þa stod Drihtnes engel wiþ hig, and Godes beorhtnes him ymbe scean; and hi him mycelum ege adredon. And se engel him to cwæð, Nelle ge eow adrædan; soþlice nu ic eow bodie mycelne gefean, se bið eallum folce; for þam to dæg eow ys Hælend acenned, se is Drihten Crist, on Dauides ceastre. And þis tacen eow byð: Ge gemetað an cild hræglum bewunden, and on binne aled. And þa wæs færinga geworden mid þam engle mycelnes heofenlices werydes, God heriendra and þus cweþendra, Gode sy wuldor on heahnesse, and on eorðan sybb mannum godes willan.

Middle English
(translation by John Wycliffe, c. 1380-83)
And it was don in tho daies, a maundement wente out fro the emperour August, thatal the world schulde be discryued. This firste discryuyng was maad of Cyryn, iustice of Sirie. And alle men wenten to make professioun, ech in to his owne citee. And Joseph went vp fro Galilee, fro the citee Nazareth, in to Judee, in to a citee of Dauid, that is clepid Bethleem, for that he was of the hous and of the meyne of Dauid, that he schulde knouleche with Marie, his wijf, that was weddid to hym, and was greet with child. And it was don, while thei weren there, the daies were fulfillid, that sche schulde bere child. And sche bare hir first borun sone, and wlappide hym in clothis, and leide hym in a cratche, for ther was no place to hym in no chaumbir. And scheepherdis weren in the same cuntre, wakynge and kepynge the watchis of the nygt on her flok. And lo! the aungel of the Lord stood bisidis hem, and the cleernesse of God schinede aboute hem; and thei dredden with greet drede. And the aungel seide to hem, Nyle ye drede; for lo! Y preche to you a greet ioye, that schal be to al puple. For a sauyoure is borun to dai to you, that is Crist the Lord, in the citee of Dauid. And this is a tokene to you; ye schulen fynde a yong child wlappid in clothis, and leid in a cratche. And sudenli ther was maad with the aungel a multitude of heuenli knygthod, heriynge God, and seiynge, Glorie be in the higeste thingis to God, and in erthe pees be to men of good wille.

---------- Post added 2012-04-10 at 01:39 PM ----------

When our teacher said "We are starting on Shakespeare's Othello next week". Everyone in the class just let out a huge sigh. My point is that our teacher is wasting his time teaching to a class that just isn't interested in a 400+ year old piece of literature. It just isn't relevant to the majority of our society.

I have a feeling you have a bad teacher.

---------- Post added 2012-04-10 at 01:44 PM ----------

Oh, and I see a lot of people screwing up one important detail about Shakespeare here. See, he was a plagiarist. Maybe the most famous plagiarist of all time. NONE of the stories he wrote were original. Every single play he wrote was based off of stories that were already familiar to the audience who was going to see them. He didn't come up with archetypes or make up the stories out of thin air. He just wrote them better in his own words than anybody else to the point where his are the only ones that survive to this day in their entirety.

Think about England 1600. Drama was not considered the highest form of writing. In fact, it was considered the lowest form, and was a stupidly poor way to attempt to make a living as a writer. With all that against him, Shakespeare wrote plays that would already draw audiences in because it was stories they knew and understood and had heard before (yes, that's right, go ahead and make the Call of Duty comparison. It's not a bad one).

---------- Post added 2012-04-10 at 01:48 PM ----------

The OP isn't really complaining about Shakespeare but more of how he is being taught. Shakespeare is not taught correctly in schools and is taught in the most boring way. Math and science are awesome too but the way how they are taught is awful.

The fault, dear OP, is not in the Shakespeare, but in our teachers... for they are abject failures in life which is why they became teachers in the first place.

Sadly, there is a large kernel of truth in this post. As I mentioned above, I am a former teacher. One of the things I was told most often while teaching, and once I went public with my intent to quit and go back to school, was the same thing, "Yeah, you're too smart to be a teacher."

Isn't that just a bit screwed up? Don't we want smart people teaching? Because, unfortunately, a lot of coworkers could barely pass basic tests for their content area that are required to become teachers (whereas I woke up 30 minutes before the test start time, had a few beers during the break, and still scored almost perfect).

[Hraklea]

I'm not sure how this works where you live, but in Brazil we don't study "the bests" of each kind of art in school, that annoys me. I don't like to read, but I like music and paintings. Why can't we study Mozart or Monet rather than Shakespear? I don't think that teaching literature on schools is all wrong, but literature is not a "superior form of art" to be treated like this (at least, here).

[roahn the warlock]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think his writings were bad in any way. But they are old and boring. It's not just looking up definitions of words, grammar has changed a lot since his time too. I'm not an English major, so the class I'm in is just a per-requisite. My title is a little misleading to the point where I think that Shakespeare should continue to be studied, but by people who are interested in that kind of literature.

It's written in poem dude, of course the grammar is confusing, grab the half n half version from your bookstore. Umm, but as you get older you will understand the beauty of the language. I'll just leave this here. probably THE most popular, and most beautiful soliloquy Shakespeare has done. I do agree, it all rides on the teacher. if the teacher can't even bloody read it, means you won't either. I went to a good school with good teachers so IDK, but plays in general are hard to read, because they are -plays- they are meant to be seen and heard, not read. teachers either show the play first, or have the kids read it out loud/ act it out... acting out Romeo and Juliette? fun stuff, biting my thumb at shit all over the place.

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir to? 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; Ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes Calamity of so long life:
For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of time,
The Oppressor's wrong, the proud man's Contumely,
The pangs of despised Love, the Law’s delay,
The insolence of Office, and the Spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his Quietus make
With a bare Bodkin? Who would Fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered Country, from whose bourn
No Traveller returns, Puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
Thus Conscience does make Cowards of us all,
And thus the Native hue of Resolution
Is sicklied o'er, with the pale cast of Thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment,
With this regard their Currents turn awry,
And lose the name of Action. Soft you now,
The fair Ophelia? Nymph, in thy Orisons
Be all my sins remembered.

[eschatological]

I read Alas Babylon in high school, and though it was fun to read, it's not an example of good literature. I was not a huge fan of any Shakespeare plays I had to read. I personally think that Shakespeare is a little bit dated and that some of the symbolism and imagery is a little too difficult to decipher for the average high school student. I felt that books like Death of a Salesmen and Frankenstein were more fitting for high school. I also remember reading a lot of short stories such as the Tell Tale Heart, and other works of Poe's. Another short story that stood out was The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. I in no way admit to being an expert of any literature, but I certainly always had this feeling that Shakespeare's work was out of place in a high school classroom.

If you find Shakespeare dated, what do you think of the English translations of Dostoevsky? What do you think of Camus? If you think Shakespeare is dated and irrelevant, how are you going to understand James Joyce? William Faulkner? Hell, Faulkner's most famous work is named after a line from Macbeth, when Macbeth learns of the death of his wife:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

[Deleted]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think his writings were bad in any way. But they are old and boring. It's not just looking up definitions of words, grammar has changed a lot since his time too. I'm not an English major, so the class I'm in is just a per-requisite. My title is a little misleading to the point where I think that Shakespeare should continue to be studied, but by people who are interested in that kind of literature.

It's interesting because i think i had to do Shakespeare for 3 pieces of work during secondary school. The versions we were given where the pre-translated versions, and only those doing a-level english literature i believe were required to read the 'old' english versions of it.

Alot of what we did were the hidden meanings of stories, and Shakespeare's work actually had meanings throughout it, not just the story. Something i imagine more modern books are lacking. (i had to do dr jekyll and mr hyde and analysis the good vs evil within the book, and when you read into it there is alot, i know its not shakespeare but its alot lighter that shakespeare for those things.)

Also i imagine its a case of your teacher's teacher's teacher did it, so by the time you do it, most of the 'meanings' of what he writes is known and generally agreed on. (one says a comment which their teacher agrees/expands on, they do it to their class, who do it to there class.........) as such it's probably easier to standardise markings, newer books will have less generally agreed points (do a book just released your school may take it as one meaning, another school takes it another way...causes hassle marking it)

[Deleted]

Shakespear is good but i find him over rated.

Sure for his time and a long time after he was one of the best and still is, i think the focus put on him in some countries for the purpose of teaching eduction is stupid.

Thanks to the lacklustre teaching in England i cannot read Shakespear anymore without a bad taste.

[Flaks]

A society with no arts, full of scientists, engineers, and financiers is a sad society.

One could argue that there is nothing more inherently artistic than mathematics, the basis for the latter three subjects of your post.

But seriously, Shakespeare, like any amazing classic mind, is timeless. To think that he has or ever will become obsolete is naive to the greatest and a mass belief in such an idea will only lead to mental degradation of Western society.

[Deleted]

Shakespear is good but i find him over rated.

Sure for his time and a long time after he was one of the best and still is, i think the focus put on him in some countries for the purpose of teaching eduction is stupid.

Thanks to the lacklustre teaching in England i cannot read Shakespear anymore without a bad taste.

That is not the education systems fault. It's yours. Stop pretending that it detracts from the wonder of humanist period literature, we all had crap teachers but you simply failed to understand and appreciate the works.

Getting sick of this mentality. "Oh school ruined Shakespeare for me!", what? Wilde is completely destroyed by the education system, that doesn't make his work any less worthy.

I'm fed up of this attitude. Just admit you don't like it and stop putting the blame somewhere else. Literature isn't for everyone.

[Wells]

One could argue that there is nothing more inherently artistic than mathematics, the basis for the latter three subjects of your post.

Art is the expression of the self onto the rest of the world.

There is nothing self expressive in math. Its simply a way to measure the world.

[Maharishi]

Art is the expression of the self onto the rest of the world.

There is nothing self expressive in math. Its simply a way to measure the world.

That's like saying there's nothing artistic about painting because paint is just a chemical combination to represent a color.

Once you can understand high level math, an elegant proof or a neatly solved problem can have plenty of individuality to it.