Hillsborough schools cut back on Shakespeare because his plays are too raunchy

[TheReckoning]

If I was creating high school curriculum, I would never require reading for any standard English class published pre-2005. Reading things prior to that might make for useful historical studies, but literature that is studied for its cultural analysis is best studied if it’s contemporary.

[GP270watch]

It's not really that controversial an opinion.

Kill Bill: why we must take Shakespeare out of the classroom

 Here's an op-ed discussing why Shakespeare is outdated and taught incorrectly anyways.

"Shakespeare is outdated" is absolutely not what this op-ed is saying. It's impossible for any remotely decent art to become "outdated" anyway; it just moves from being primarily of relevance to the HIP and NOW to being primarily of relevance to cultural history, a subject that rightists hate and have always hated.

 The english language used in Shakespeare is outdated, that is exactly true. It is in fact more outdated for example than Dante's Italian in The Divine Comedy which was written centuries before but is closer to modern Italian than Shakespeare is to modern English.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

If I was creating high school curriculum, I would never require reading for any standard English class published pre-2005. Reading things prior to that might make for useful historical studies, but literature that is studied for its cultural analysis is best studied if it’s contemporary.

How is it that you manage to have the worst takes on literally every issue.

Students don’t read older literature just (or primarily) for “historical studies”, but because several pieces of older literature, such as the works of Shakespeare, have a continuing place in popular culture and reference. If you were to write up a list of the most referenced and most culturally relevant works in the modern day, a significant number of them would be older literature.

Even if you think that we should be teaching students primarily newer material, a cutoff as late as 2005 is patently absurd. Anything 20 years old is apparently no longer relevant. I keep saying “older literature”, but by your standards Harry Potter is no longer relevant to modern culture or modern readers.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's not really that controversial an opinion.

Kill Bill: why we must take Shakespeare out of the classroom

 Here's an op-ed discussing why Shakespeare is outdated and taught incorrectly anyways.

"Shakespeare is outdated" is absolutely not what this op-ed is saying. It's impossible for any remotely decent art to become "outdated" anyway; it just moves from being primarily of relevance to the HIP and NOW to being primarily of relevance to cultural history, a subject that rightists hate and have always hated.

 The english language used in Shakespeare is outdated, that is exactly true. It is in fact more outdated for example than Dante's Italian in The Divine Comedy which was written centuries before but is closer to modern Italian than Shakespeare is to modern English.

Shakespeare reads fine if you have a competent teacher and (not or) are interested in learning.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If I was creating high school curriculum, I would never require reading for any standard English class published pre-2005. Reading things prior to that might make for useful historical studies, but literature that is studied for its cultural analysis is best studied if it’s contemporary.

Most well-read conservative

[TheReckoning]

If I was creating high school curriculum, I would never require reading for any standard English class published pre-2005. Reading things prior to that might make for useful historical studies, but literature that is studied for its cultural analysis is best studied if it’s contemporary.

Most well-read conservative

Interestingly enough, essentially all the literature I read was written 1980s or prior, but that works for me because I have an interest in history. But a lot of it doesn’t make sense if written purely through a 2023 lense.

For example, in books, reference to dollar amounts is common. But a character talking about 100 dollars in a book published in the 1970s means something very different than a character talking about 100 dollars in the 2020s. That difference will be lost on readers who don’t know historical inflation very well. Explaining this difference distracts from the main point of the novel.

If I was creating high school curriculum, I would never require reading for any standard English class published pre-2005. Reading things prior to that might make for useful historical studies, but literature that is studied for its cultural analysis is best studied if it’s contemporary.

How is it that you manage to have the worst takes on literally every issue.

Students don’t read older literature just (or primarily) for “historical studies”, but because several pieces of older literature, such as the works of Shakespeare, have a continuing place in popular culture and reference. If you were to write up a list of the most referenced and most culturally relevant works in the modern day, a significant number of them would be older literature.

Even if you think that we should be teaching students primarily newer material, a cutoff as late as 2005 is patently absurd. Anything 20 years old is apparently no longer relevant. I keep saying “older literature”, but by your standards Harry Potter is no longer relevant to modern culture or modern readers.

[soundchaser]

“High school students have never heard of inflation; therefore, nobody should read Shakespeare” is perhaps the dumbest argument I’ve ever seen put forward on this forum.

[Vosem]

It's not really that controversial an opinion.

Kill Bill: why we must take Shakespeare out of the classroom

 Here's an op-ed discussing why Shakespeare is outdated and taught incorrectly anyways.

"Shakespeare is outdated" is absolutely not what this op-ed is saying. It's impossible for any remotely decent art to become "outdated" anyway; it just moves from being primarily of relevance to the HIP and NOW to being primarily of relevance to cultural history, a subject that rightists hate and have always hated.

Beyond the generality of this claim, isn’t it at least counter to stereotype? One finds rightists in every country depicted as overly interested in preserving the country’s glorious history and accomplishments, including cultural accomplishments, even if those were really not so great; while leftists are depicted as disinterested in what the country has already accomplished and more interested in highlighting flaws, or highlighting how the country might gain from borrowing foreign practices.

(These are extreme generalities to be sure; I think in the US at least the right is authentically interested in the society they want to create to the exclusion of whatever came before it, but this feels like an outlier applying to few countries or places which are not the 1990s-and-later United States.)

Anyway, (giant nerd alert), I was a founding member of my high school’s Shakespeare Club as a sophomore, and we put on three plays (Macbeth in 2013 — extremely unsuccessfully because some of the actors were suspended and could not come to rehearsals — and then Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet in 2014 and 2015, with significantly greater success); my understanding is that the organization survives to this day. Plenty of its members were not especially academically inclined (it was really through Shakespeare Club that I was first really exposed to drug culture), and yet it was hugely successful and lots of pretty ordinary high schoolers were able to read, understand, and appreciate Shakespeare’s works. Reading them does not take being an intellectual or having an interest in early modern linguistics. They are accessible enough that it doesn’t even really take sobriety.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

If I was creating high school curriculum, I would never require reading for any standard English class published pre-2005. Reading things prior to that might make for useful historical studies, but literature that is studied for its cultural analysis is best studied if it’s contemporary.

Students don’t read older literature just (or primarily) for “historical studies”, but because several pieces of older literature, such as the works of Shakespeare, have a continuing place in popular culture and reference. If you were to write up a list of the most referenced and most culturally relevant works in the modern day, a significant number of them would be older literature.

Even if you think that we should be teaching students primarily newer material, a cutoff as late as 2005 is patently absurd. Anything 20 years old is apparently no longer relevant. I keep saying “older literature”, but by your standards Harry Potter is no longer relevant to modern culture or modern readers.

Very tempted to recommend that post semi-ironically... not because it's "dumb" but because it's so weirdly idiosyncratic that it's refreshingly earnest.

Anyway as a person raised in an athiest household with a parent openly scornful of religion, this was the only reason I ever read any of the Bible.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's not really that controversial an opinion.

Kill Bill: why we must take Shakespeare out of the classroom

 Here's an op-ed discussing why Shakespeare is outdated and taught incorrectly anyways.

"Shakespeare is outdated" is absolutely not what this op-ed is saying. It's impossible for any remotely decent art to become "outdated" anyway; it just moves from being primarily of relevance to the HIP and NOW to being primarily of relevance to cultural history, a subject that rightists hate and have always hated.

Beyond the generality of this claim, isn’t it at least counter to stereotype? One finds rightists in every country depicted as overly interested in preserving the country’s glorious history and accomplishments, including cultural accomplishments, even if those were really not so great; while leftists are depicted as disinterested in what the country has already accomplished and more interested in highlighting flaws, or highlighting how the country might gain from borrowing foreign practices.

(These are extreme generalities to be sure; I think in the US at least the right is authentically interested in the society they want to create to the exclusion of whatever came before it, but this feels like an outlier applying to few countries or places which are not the 1990s-and-later United States.)

I have idiosyncratic "me" reasons for applying this claim more generally but I don't really feel like going down that rabbit hole at the moment so I'll concede the point for now.

Anyway, (giant nerd alert), I was a founding member of my high school’s Shakespeare Club as a sophomore, and we put on three plays (Macbeth in 2013 — extremely unsuccessfully because some of the actors were suspended and could not come to rehearsals — and then Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet in 2014 and 2015, with significantly greater success); my understanding is that the organization survives to this day. Plenty of its members were not especially academically inclined (it was really through Shakespeare Club that I was first really exposed to drug culture), and yet it was hugely successful and lots of pretty ordinary high schoolers were able to read, understand, and appreciate Shakespeare’s works. Reading them does not take being an intellectual or having an interest in early modern linguistics. They are accessible enough that it doesn’t even really take sobriety.

Entirely agreed. As you probably know, there are also successful performances of Shakespeare's plays in environments like hospitals and prisons.

[soundchaser]

^Highly recommend the documentary Shakespeare Behind Bars about that very subject. A fascinating glimpse into daily life in prison AND the continued relevance of the Bard.

[jojoju1998]

When i was in High School, I only read one Shakespeare story, Romeo and Juliet. That was it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The english language used in Shakespeare is outdated, that is exactly true. It is in fact more outdated for example than Dante's Italian in The Divine Comedy which was written centuries before but is closer to modern Italian than Shakespeare is to modern English.

This is just ignorance and reflects a deficient education.

[jojoju1998]

The english language used in Shakespeare is outdated, that is exactly true. It is in fact more outdated for example than Dante's Italian in The Divine Comedy which was written centuries before but is closer to modern Italian than Shakespeare is to modern English.

This is just ignorance and reflects a deficient education.

Now you know why General Education in the US Colleges exist.


But even that has been watered down.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The english language used in Shakespeare is outdated, that is exactly true. It is in fact more outdated for example than Dante's Italian in The Divine Comedy which was written centuries before but is closer to modern Italian than Shakespeare is to modern English.

This is just ignorance and reflects a deficient education.

The yelling out of the way, I'll elaborate. The language used in Shakespeare is Modern English and is perfectly intelligible to a contemporary speaker, as it is the same form of English as is spoken and written today. You appear to be confusing it with Middle English, which did look very different and is not intelligible to modern speakers:

_{for wonder of his hwe men hade
set in his semblaunt sene
he ferde as freke were fade
and oueral enker grene}

If (and really only if) you're familiar with some of the more conservative dialects spoken in some provincial areas in England, then you might be able to work your way through that, but it wouldn't be easy. But in practice in order to read Middle English, then one must learn Middle English. Before Middle English there was Old English, and...

_{HǷÆT! ǷĒ Gār-Dena      in geār-dagum
þēod-cyninga      þrym gefrūnon,
hū þā æðelingas      ellen fremedon.}

Now, Shakespeare reads as follows:

_{O, full of scorpions is my mind, dear wife.
Thou know’st that Banquo and his Fleance lives.}

The language is florid and poetic (in fact is literally written in verse) and there are a few elements that are a little old fashioned now (though 'thou', for instance, remains in use in some dialects), but it is in general extremely clear, especially when compared with those other extracts, both also from notable works of English literature. The main issue with comprehending Shakespeare, other than I suppose a lack of familiarity with the conventions of verse (which is an education issue), is liable to be the lack of standardized spelling, but this was an issue until the 19th century (even now, formal English is a lot less standardized than is typical) and should not present problems when read aloud.

Another example, again from a famous work, from the same period, though by a different writer:

_{A stately palace built of squared brick,
Which cunningly was without mortar laid,
Whose walls were high, but nothing strong, nor thick,
And golden foil all over them displayed,
That purest sky with brightness they dismayed.}

Anyone who struggles with that would struggle to read a newspaper or website today. And, finally, from a little earlier:

_{I COMMENDE thy soule to God the father almighty, and thy body to the grounde, earth to earth, asshes to asshes, dust to dust, in sure and certayne hope of resurreccion to eternall lyfe, through our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall chaunge our vile body, that it may be lyke to his glorious body, accordyng to the myghtie workyng wherby he is hable to subdue all thynges to himselfe.}

The only issue here is the spelling, but we all know it and have no difficulty in understanding it when read out loud.

[quesaisje]

"Schools shouldn't teach literature more than a decade or two old because inflation will make any dollar figures referenced therein too confusing for high school students" is one of the wackiest takes I've ever seen.

[HisGrace]

I fail to see this difference between this and cutting back on Shakespeare for being too white and old like all of you guys wanted during the "disrupt texts" fad.

If I was creating high school curriculum, I would never require reading for any standard English class published pre-2005. Reading things prior to that might make for useful historical studies, but literature that is studied for its cultural analysis is best studied if it’s contemporary.

This is a take I'd expect from some blue haired tumblr girl who doesn't shave her pits who thinks that the only reason her favorite YA novel isn't held in as high esteem as Shakespeare is because of "systematic misogyny" or some BS

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

I fail to see this difference between this and cutting back on Shakespeare for being too white and old like all of you guys wanted during the "disrupt texts" fad.

Citation desperately needed.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I fail to see this difference between this and cutting back on Shakespeare for being too white and old like all of you guys wanted during the "disrupt texts" fad.

If I was creating high school curriculum, I would never require reading for any standard English class published pre-2005. Reading things prior to that might make for useful historical studies, but literature that is studied for its cultural analysis is best studied if it’s contemporary.

This is a take I'd expect from some blue haired tumblr girl who doesn't shave her pits who thinks that the only reason her favorite YA novel isn't held in as high esteem as Shakespeare is because of "systematic misogyny" or some BS

Those people all migrated to Twitter to go in the Thunderdome with celebrities and world leaders because they thought they could hack it and the people still on Tumblr cordially hope they got ripped to shreds. Keep up.

[Battista Minola 1616]

It's not really that controversial an opinion.

Kill Bill: why we must take Shakespeare out of the classroom

 Here's an op-ed discussing why Shakespeare is outdated and taught incorrectly anyways.

"Shakespeare is outdated" is absolutely not what this op-ed is saying. It's impossible for any remotely decent art to become "outdated" anyway; it just moves from being primarily of relevance to the HIP and NOW to being primarily of relevance to cultural history, a subject that rightists hate and have always hated.

 The english language used in Shakespeare is outdated, that is exactly true. It is in fact more outdated for example than Dante's Italian in The Divine Comedy which was written centuries before but is closer to modern Italian than Shakespeare is to modern English.

It is not clear how you even measure that, but broadly to the extent that Shakespeare's language is outdated, Dante's language is just as outdated. I think you'll find a lot more obsolete words in the former but that's because the breadth of his vocabulary was simply unparalleled. The Divine Comedy features an astounding amount of truncation and elision and small spelling differences (remember that Italian spelling is much more phonetic than English), many obsolete word forms that can be fairly confusing (for instance, a lot of endings in -ggia for words whose modern form uses a different consonant - it is not at all obvious at first glance that "inveggia" is "invidia" meaning envy), which includeth verb forms in case thou wert wondering. Ordinary students always read it with explanatory notes.

Side note: I am almost certainly the only person on this forum who both studied the Divine Comedy in original language and played Shakespeare (partially in English!) for three years in high school, so I believe I have pretty good credentials on this.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, I suspect the issue is that he has confused Shakespeare for Chaucer. Who, of course, wrote in Middle English.

[Battista Minola 1616]

Yes, I suspect the issue is that he has confused Shakespeare for Chaucer. Who, of course, wrote in Middle English.

Yes, Dante's Italian is genuinely closer to current language than his English contemporaries' writing was, but that is a different matter.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes, I suspect the issue is that he has confused Shakespeare for Chaucer. Who, of course, wrote in Middle English.

And parts of the Canterbury Tales are still comprehensible to non-specialists today. Most people who, again, have had competent English teachers can get the gist of "'My lige lady, generally,' quod he,/'Wommen desiren to have sovereynetee/As wel over hir housbond as hir love,/And for to been in maistrie hym above./This is youre mooste desir, thogh ye me kille./Dooth as yow list, I am heer at youre wille.'/In al the court ne was ther wyf, ne mayde,/Ne wydwe, that contraried that he sayde,/But seyden he was worthy han his lyf," even if what comes before and after that passage is much more opaque.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And parts of the Canterbury Tales are still comprehensible to non-specialists today. Most people who, again, have had competent English teachers can get the gist of "'My lige lady, generally,' quod he,/'Wommen desiren to have sovereynetee/As wel over hir housbond as hir love,/And for to been in maistrie hym above./This is youre mooste desir, thogh ye me kille./Dooth as yow list, I am heer at youre wille.'/In al the court ne was ther wyf, ne mayde,/Ne wydwe, that contraried that he sayde,/But seyden he was worthy han his lyf," even if what comes before and after that passage is much more opaque.

Yes. Gawain, of course, looks a little harder at first, but that's mostly because it's a little older and written in a more conservative dialect and so continues to use some unusual letters, most notably the thorn and the yogh. But once you get over that, then the same pattern of being reasonably legible in parts applies, though there will be more of those parts if you're more familiar with some provincial English dialects. For instance this is very clear:

_{Hir body watz schort and þik,
⁠Hir buttokez balȝ and brode,
⁠More lykkerwys on to lyk
⁠Watz þat scho hade on lode.}

Naturally, Victorian and Edwardian translations routinely bowdlerize this bit.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

And parts of the Canterbury Tales are still comprehensible to non-specialists today. Most people who, again, have had competent English teachers can get the gist of "'My lige lady, generally,' quod he,/'Wommen desiren to have sovereynetee/As wel over hir housbond as hir love,/And for to been in maistrie hym above./This is youre mooste desir, thogh ye me kille./Dooth as yow list, I am heer at youre wille.'/In al the court ne was ther wyf, ne mayde,/Ne wydwe, that contraried that he sayde,/But seyden he was worthy han his lyf," even if what comes before and after that passage is much more opaque.

Yes. Gawain, of course, looks a little harder at first, but that's mostly because it's a little older and written in a more conservative dialect and so continues to use some unusual letters, most notably the thorn and the yogh. But once you get over that, then the same pattern of being reasonably legible in parts applies, though there will be more of those parts if you're more familiar with some provincial English dialects. For instance this is very clear:

_{Hir body watz schort and þik,
⁠Hir buttokez balȝ and brode,
⁠More lykkerwys on to lyk
⁠Watz þat scho hade on lode.}

Naturally, Victorian and Edwardian translations routinely bowdlerize this bit.

It would also have to do with the Gawain Poet probably being from the Midlands (hence noted Midlands stan Tolkien's partiality to him), whereas Chaucer spent most of his life in London, wouldn't it?