Why do we still study Shakespear's work?

[Waaldo]

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.

[Ciano]

..Shakespeare is the reason we have a lot of words in the English language.

Why shouldn't we study him?
Because people are too lazy to look up words they don't know? Because it's too "old and boring"?

Maybe it's not to your taste, but it's still some of the best literature in the world.

It's not that people are too lazy to look up words they don't know, its that the stories are predictable, stale, and have no connections to modern day problems. Plays such as Death of a Salesman are much better to study, as students can actually connect to problems within the play and apply them to current events outside of the classroom.

And if any of Shakespeare's plays do have even one connection to current events, teachers fail to point them out. Shakespeare is only "taught" in high school classrooms today because it is tradition and society is afraid to break away from such traditions. The real problem though, is the way they are taught. They aren't taught really, they're just read and translated. It would be much better for the classrooms to go sit down and watch the play being acted out, as it was meant to be seen. Shakespeare didn't write books, he wrote plays.

There are many reasons why we shouldn't study his works, you just have to think outside of the traditional "his works are masterpieces and therefore should be shoved down peoples' throats" way of thinking.

[MathAddict]

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

I think that everyone should take 1-2 humanities courses, then offer the rest of our mandatory literature and liberal art courses as electives. Certainly those who wish to maintain the soul of humanity should have the means to do so. I just think the average joe or jane does not hold an endearing opinion of the classics.

If people are forced to learn STEM subjects and the liberal arts, yet they hate both, at least the STEM subjects can provide some modern day benefits. Hence, focus on STEM and only mandate taster courses in the liberal arts.

[Waaldo]

Not having any appreciation for the classics in literature, from Greece and Rome to Shakespeare and the like is the sign of a poorly educated individual.

My professor LOVES Shakespeare, but he is forcing it on students who aren't interested.
No one can tell me to like something, for my passion is with science. Not wanting to learn Shakespeare does not make me poorly educated. It just means that, as a human being, I am not interested in outdated literature. Everyone has different tastes in what they enjoy doing.

[poser765]

It's not that people are too lazy to look up words they don't know, its that the stories are predictable, stale, and have no connections to modern day problems. Plays such as Death of a Salesman are much better to study, as students can actually connect to problems within the play and apply them to current events outside of the classroom.

And if any of Shakespeare's plays do have even one connection to current events, teachers fail to point them out. Shakespeare is only "taught" in high school classrooms today because it is tradition and society is afraid to break away from such traditions. The real problem though, is the way they are taught. They aren't taught really, they're just read and translated. It would be much better for the classrooms to go sit down and watch the play being acted out, as it was meant to be seen. Shakespeare didn't write books, he wrote plays.

There are many reasons why we shouldn't study his works, you just have to think outside of the traditional "his works are masterpieces and therefore should be shoved down peoples' throats" way of thinking.

See the problem with this argument is that that most stories are not original. Just about any story you can think that is told today has an analog that is much, much older. William's stories are still relevant to modern times. Again studying them is not totally about the story themselves, but the critical thinking skills required to understand and apply. Instant gratification is not good, nor is it good to have potential though exercises spoon fed to you, thus negating the reason being able to think critically.

(hope that made sense...my mother-in- law AND wife were looking over my shoulder and asking questions of me.)

[Deleted]

They that have power to hurt and will do none,
That do not do the thing they most do show,
Who, moving others, are themselves as stone,
Unmoved, cold, and to temptation slow,
They rightly do inherit heaven's graces
And husband nature's riches from expense;
They are the lords and owners of their faces,
Others but stewards of their excellence.
The summer's flower is to the summer sweet,
Though to itself it only live and die,
But if that flower with base infection meet,
The basest weed outbraves his dignity:
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.

[Tilie]

Shakespeare boring?

I bet you like Michael Bay movies.

I lol'd hard at this.

I have nothing against Shakespeare, I'm just not a fan of old English Literature. I shouldn't have to read a line, take 15 minutes to dissect it down to discover the meaning behind it.

[Mormolyce]

What do you mean relevant? Relevant to what? It's fiction.

If they could only teach you things the current generation can understand you'd be studying Transformers Dark of the Moon or something.

[MathAddict]

Give me some end of the world 1970's cold war amageddon literature any day of the week. =p

I propose all Shakespeare plays be rewritten in such a theme and we can call the compilation of modified works "Shakespeare 9000!"

"the paragon of man..... the A-bomb sucka!" (insert giant explosion here)

[Waaldo]

What do you mean relevant? Relevant to what? It's fiction.

If they could only teach you things the current generation can understand you'd be studying Transformers Dark of the Moon or something.

Awesome, another Michael Bay reference. By relevant I don't mean It has to be some crazy action packed robot war, I just mean relevant in language. There are a lot of tragic love stories written today.

[Solmyr13]

People have touched on this already but...

Shakespeare is the reason we have modern English as we have it today. He completely changed how ideas were viewed; compare him to the Beatles or Elvis. Would the English language has continued to grow without him like Music would have without the Beatles/Elvis? Absolutely. Would it have been NEARLY as successful? Absolutely not. Shakespeare is a pain in the ass, and while in High School I admit I HATED him, but now that i'm older I really do have a true sense for how good his works of art are. Studying Shakespeare is a good thing and sadly, one of those "When you get older" subjects that people in high school hate hearing (and trust me, I HATED that phrase in high school).

[vizzle]

My professor LOVES Shakespeare, but he is forcing it on students who aren't interested.
No one can tell me to like something, for my passion is with science. Not wanting to learn Shakespeare does not make me poorly educated. It just means that, as a human being, I am not interested in outdated literature. Everyone has different tastes in what they enjoy doing.

Yes, and some people don't like science.

We all learn things we don't want to in school. Someone who likes literature might ask "why the fuck do I have to learn about science?"

[Boogieknight]

You study Shakespeare for the same reason you study Edgar Allan Poe. The basis of almost every story told today is from the archetypal setups or story models created by these people. Almost everything you read or see on the screen is a play on stories written by these 2 men. 10 Things I Hate About You is a remodeled Taming of the Shrew, Sherlock Holmes is a remodeled The Purloined Letter, West Side Story is a remodeled Romeo and Juliet. You have to study the origins of something to understand the current medium and interpretation.

[gunner_recall]

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.

Would you rather read Twilight? Is that a passable form of literature that is relevant to your generation?

That's precisely why we study Shakespeare, is because his work transcends generation. Many themes that evolved today are prevalent in his works. Not only that, but you have to really look at his work to grasp his brilliance. His work was intricately woven together and had many different hidden themes and thoughts that you don't notice on the surface. Not to mention that his plays have some historical accuracy and social commentary of his time that gives us an insight into what it was like in Shakespeare's day.

It's understandable if you don't like literature or plays. That's fine. And Othello is one of my least favorite of Shakespeare's works so I could understand if you just don't like it but that's the reason we study him today still, is he's truly one of the more brilliant writers to have lived.

[Reg]

Plus, bust out a sonnet on a date and panties will drop.

[gunner_recall]

Plus, bust out a sonnet on a date and panties will drop.

Get this man a steak!

[Amsden]

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.

Since when is expanding your vocabulary a bad thing?

[Solmyr13]

Plus, bust out a sonnet on a date and panties will drop.

This man has an amazing point. Use Shakespearean poetry and most girls will fall in love with you.

[Waaldo]

Would you rather read Twilight? Is that a passable form of literature that is relevant to your generation?

That's precisely why we study Shakespeare, is because his work transcends generation. Many themes that evolved today are prevalent in his works. Not only that, but you have to really look at his work to grasp his brilliance. His work was intricately woven together and had many different hidden themes and thoughts that you don't notice on the surface. Not to mention that his plays have some historical accuracy and social commentary of his time that gives us an insight into what it was like in Shakespeare's day.

It's understandable if you don't like literature or plays. That's fine. And Othello is one of my least favorite of Shakespeare's works so I could understand if you just don't like it but that's the reason we study him today still, is he's truly one of the more brilliant writers to have lived.

I'm talking about college classes, not middle school. Just because I want something more current doesn't mean it has to be about werewolves and vampires, or like I said above, crazy action packed robot war. There is a lot of relevant and not ridiculous literature.

[Ciano]

See the problem with this argument is that that most stories are not original. Just about any story you can think that is told today has an analog that is much, much older. William's stories are still relevant to modern times. Again studying them is not totally about the story themselves, but the critical thinking skills required to understand and apply. Instant gratification is not good, nor is it good to have potential though exercises spoon fed to you, thus negating the reason being able to think critically.

(hope that made sense...my mother-in- law AND wife were looking over my shoulder and asking questions of me.)

I agree that studying literature is about the critical thinking. The problem is though, that most high school teachers do not take Shakespeare to that level. My AP American Lit teacher, however, took every book we read in that class to a completely different level of thinking than I had ever experienced before. If teachers would take Shakespeare to that level, then I would agree that it must be taught in high school classrooms. But the reality of it is that the class just reads the book, maybe picks out a few juicy parts of it, then moves on. Since that is the case, I would argue that his plays should be pulled from high school classrooms and be taught by professors at the university level who can tackle his plays.

Just as a quick example: Hamlet's famous "To be, or not to be" speech that is full of existentialist ideas was read over in minutes time and the word 'existentialism' never came up in class. Why, then, should we have read Hamlet, if we did not delve into the deeper meanings of the play?