Shakespeare is a divisive figure in literary circles for many reasons. One is that nobody really knows if he wrote all that he is credited for writing, such as “Henry VI, Part 1-3.” Additionally, the difficulties of Shakespeare’s language can hinder many students who may never take anything away from the writing.
Nonetheless, Shakespeare’s work has a massive amount of historical context, which builds background knowledge, and an undeniable attachment to universal themes that still resound with audiences today.
Today, we are going to look at two arguments, one for teaching Shakespeare and one for not teaching Shakespeare, which can give us some idea to the intricacies and importance of the Bard.
Those who are for teaching Shakespeare
Shakespeare is a literary heavyweight, and just bringing up his name strikes a chord with readers and writers (you can see eyes growing wide with affection at the very utterance of his name). So, with that in mind, it makes sense that he’s taught in school.
Genevieve White, writing for the British Council, stated that there are a variety of grievances when it comes to bringing “the Bard into the classroom,” but Shakespeare’s modern relevance far outweighs those complaints.
“Who hasn’t, like Juliet, fallen in love with the wrong person or, like King Lear, hurt the one they love the most? Open any newspaper and you’ll find proof of Shakespeare’s contemporary relevance.“
She continues:
“In our world today, people do terrible things to achieve their ambition (as did Macbeth). Murders are committed (see the tragedies) and prejudice and inequality continue to thrive as they did in the lives of Othello, Katherine and Shylock.“
(White)
I think this is a good point to bring up because what I often ask myself is: what student is going to give a rip about these characters and conflicts? Well, if they can make an emotional connection to one of the many (many) themes that Shakespeare touches on in his writing then that speeds up the learning process and allows students to make keener inferences.
White also states that the rhetorical value of Lady Macbeth is enough to persuade students of Shakespeare’s importance.
“Teaching rhetorical devices through Shakespeare’s plays not only provides an introduction to the most compelling characters and plots in English literature, but also equips learners with the skills they will need to handle a range of everyday situations, from negotiating time off work to asking a favour of a friend.“
(White)
Of course, teaching students new skills is monumental, and teaching students skills that they can use throughout their education is also important, such as persuasive tactics and argumentative methods. Shakespeare’s plays, it could be argued, are an endless well of creative prompts and lessons.
Those who are against Teaching Shakespeare
Some detractors claim that Shakespeare has no place in the classroom because he was not meant to be read in the confines of four brick walls and behind a desk. Instead, Shakespeare is for the theatre and teachers aren’t supposed to be the arbiters of such discourse.
According to Guardian writer Mark Powell, “dramatic literature is a playground of opinions” and intention is often obfuscated in favor of discussion:
“The real answer is that we don’t know, but teachers are not encouraged to say just that: ‘I don’t know.’ Their own suppositions are often reported back in essays as facts. Plays aren’t meant to be taught like this. They are meant to be explored on their feet. Actors and audiences are supposed to argue over meaning, finding multiple ways of delivering word and deed.“
What is more, and in my own estimation, there are a lot of other works that children could be reading rather than the more abstruse (and obtuse) language found within a Shakespearean sonnet. Of Mice and Men by John Stenbeck could certainly pose as an alternative to Macbeth. Additionally, and feeding off of a previous point, is that Shakespeare’s work isn’t necessarily work that should be analyzed because it defies medium. Compared to other literary classics, Shakespeare’s work isn’t as permanent in the syntax and diction.
“The sentences you read in The Great Gatsby is the end product of what you’re supposed to get,” writes poster Jongjin on Medium. “The emotions () are carried through F. Scott Fitzgerald’s words on the page to your brain, provoking an emotional response is the point of that book and any book. For Shakespeare, the word usage, almost didn’t matter.”
Furthermore, and as stated by the author, Shakespeare’s words are almost unintelligible and “literary scholars are simply forced to make the best possible educated guess to fill the words that we don’t know…” which is not untrue because I can remember my own high school AP teacher telling us that Olde English was the name of the game when we conducted analysis, but that didn’t really help explain some of Shakespeare’s descriptions.
Conclusion
I think at this point in my life I can go either way when it comes to Shakespeare. He is an author that I would rather watch than read, because his work transfers from the script to film much cleaner than actually trying to analyze it on the page.
Of course, actors, directors, writers, and producers can make changes where they see fit and it doesn’t really change the fact that his work is meant for that particular medium in a far cleaner way, rather than, say, a high school classroom.
For me, I am just not a fan of the obstruse nature of his language (even though I have studied a lot about language), but that’s how I feel about Shakespeare when I consider the stylistic conventions of his era, which I guess are tedious and time-consuming for a modern audience. And, really, I don’t believe this is a hot take, but my opinion of his work strikes me now that I teach for a living and the thought of both discussing and teaching any of Shakespeare’s work is a drag.
I have often thought that there are just better ways to teach the difficulties of language and particular themes (Lord Tennyson’s Idles of the King, for instance, would be more interesting to high school students perhaps–or maybe just as boring). But I don’t know if any of this is necessarily true for each and every ELA room.
Yet, I would be lying if I said I’ve never heard someone–someone who is very dear to me–thunder: “Beware the Ides of March!” or if I wasn’t familiar with “Better part of valor” or even one of my favorites when somebody is blathering about:
“It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound an fury, signifying nothing.”
Shakespeare’s mark is apparent, and maybe that’s enough of a reason to teach him in schools.
Works Cited
Powell, Mark. “Kill Bill: Why We Must Take Shakespeare out of the Classroom.” The Guardian, 26 Mar. 2020, theguardian.com/culture-professionals-network/culture-professionals-blog/2014/mar/17/kill-bill-shakespeare-classroom-theatre.
White, Genevieve. “We Shouldn’t Teach Shakespeare to Learners of English: False.” British Council, 6 Mar. 2014, https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/we-shouldnt-teach-shakespeare-to-english-learners-false.
