Bored by the Bard?; essay
book...@yahoo.com
Last Updated: Monday, 3 March 2008, 12:04 GMT
Bored by the Bard?
By Georgina Pattinson
BBC News
(quote of first part)
Get up and speak, actor Janet Suzman urges
"The plots are stale, the characters are annoying, the language is
needlessly flowery."
"Why do schools make us learn Shakespeare anyway? No-one speaks like
that anymore and there are plenty other playwrights out there that we
never get to hear about."
(unquote)
Greg Reynolds
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7274486.stm
>
> Last Updated: Monday, 3 March 2008, 12:04 GMT
>
> Bored by the Bard?
> By Georgina Pattinson
> BBC News
I have been bored by some stagings, but always feel i am gaining
something. I walked out of a Henry VIII and always felt I cheated
myself.
> (quote of first part)
> Get up and speak, actor Janet Suzman urges
> "The plots are stale, the characters are annoying, the language is
> needlessly flowery."
The plots are dryer and older than stale. That's a given.
> "Why do schools make us learn Shakespeare anyway?
i had 16 years catholic and never once read or participated in a
Shakespeare play. My godchild, 12, has already played Juliet (okay she
has talent). Jesuit schools have dropped Shakespeare from required
English curriculum (not that Shakespeare did jesuits any favors,
either).
So it was my dearth of Shakespeare that made me crave it all the more
when I was ready.
> No-one speaks like
> that anymore
No one spoke like that then.
> and there are plenty other playwrights out there that we
> never get to hear about."
I confess: I want only to see Elizabethan plays.
(i see other plays, but it is never my idea.)
Greg Reynolds
There is a reading by TSP this weekend at three venues in Chicago, it
is free...
http://www.shakespeareprojectchicago.com/AYLI.html.
book...@yahoo.com
However, the article does go on to explain why Shakespeare is a good
idea, mentioning that language today presents similar characteristics
to what Shakespeare experienced. It seems we also have a wide mix of
English variants to deal with, from urban streams of immigrants,
contexts of our language use, and varying rules of spelling,
punctuation, and grammar.
Fact is, English, unlike other languages such as French, has no
official, formal, and final standards of use, AFAIK. The French have
diligently worked at establishing the language in a dictionary that is
intended to fix meanings, and I don't know if it's finished yet. But
English evolves, words and terms passing in and out continually, and
since the late 50's the only standard English dictionary uses is
usage; what people commonly say. In the US, even graduate school
language style sheets differ.
So, like Shakespeare, we are involved in the manufacture of our
language. At h.l.a.s., we might label it neology/neologisms. If you
are credited with naming something, it could be called eponomy, your
name an eponym.
What I'm getting at, I think, is that a creative process could be
emphasized in our appreciation of Shakespeare and continuing use of
the English language. One handle teachers might use in picking up on
how to study Shakespeare is to do something contrary to common
classroom standards: appreciate that our expressions of language are
flexible, sometimes original. Spelling a word in a new way might be
punning, creating word pictures, etc.. After the Shakespeare unit is
over, teacher can return to accepted school standards of English usage
with greater direction resulting from the experience.
Teachers have to struggle with maintaining high standards because
parents think English can be taught in a way that endows students with
correct use; so Shakespeare study seems to complicate some program
objectives. Instead of English, maybe we should call the class
communication arts and ease up on standards? bookburn