Poll: What is the Big Deal With Bloody Shakespeare?!?!

[CuddlyCombine]

*wave of text*

I'm feeding you a line and you're gobbling it up hook, line and sinker. It's a bit funny. Oh, and...

Anything you comment after this that tries to contradict what I have said, is a mute point because you will be using knowledge from the old playbook. Find some new professors that can change as grammar changes.

I'm assuming your professors are also part of a school which encourages blatant misspellings? I mean, hey, grammar and spelling are living, breathing entities; who sez we haz two spel rite becuz learnng evolvs. Moot is what you're looking for.

You're right, though; I don't think replying will bear any fruit, mostly because you seem to be sticking to these so-called 'teachings' far too strongly. Flame war over!

 

[Sonic Doctor]

I personally don't like his work but I can understand why others do.

I just wish they didn't force kids to study it at school, 2 years of Shakespeare is not what I call fun.

I mean the thing is, I read loads of books, I read books when I was at school and i'd even sometimes read one of my books in class. The teacher spotted me reading once and asked me why I do so bad in class when I obviously read a lot and I told her quiet bluntly that I find shakespeare to be boring and that it takes too long to get anywhere. (Quiet ironic considering my favourite author is often criticized for having a slower style of writing)

They should let kids do Tolkien or Terry Pratchett instead.

That is the problem that a lot of students have. They think that school is there to entertain them, when it actuality it is there to educate them.

The reason Shakespeare is taught so much is because he effected the English language greatly. Yes writers that you read yourself maybe popular or great writers, but that doesn't make them education worthy in the regular eduction sense.

Shakespeare was clever and witty with his writing and made a grand impact on society which has effected it to this day and the future to come. So, it is obvious to see why he is widely taught in schools. The teachers hope that some of his genius will rub off on their students and maybe the students will try and make the world richer and more interesting like Shakespeare did.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

*wave of text*

I'm feeding you a line and you're gobbling it up hook, line and sinker. It's a bit funny. Oh, and...

Anything you comment after this that tries to contradict what I have said, is a mute point because you will be using knowledge from the old playbook. Find some new professors that can change as grammar changes.

I'm assuming your professors are also part of a school which encourages blatant misspellings? I mean, hey, grammar and spelling are living, breathing entities; who sez we haz two spel rite becuz learnng evolvs. Moot is what you're looking for.

You're right, though; I don't think replying will bear any fruit, mostly because you seem to be sticking to these so-called 'teachings' far too strongly. Flame war over!

Mute/Moot. Sometimes when typing quickly typos are made. Of course since you are angry about the past not being correct, you have to jump all over every little detail. Besides, this has not been a flame war. I have been nothing if not calm and civil. I have been the teachings of the future, trying to reach out to bring the past up to date.

Your taking offense on the matter is not my doing. Open your mind and think.

 

[Continuity]

I love Shakespeare, but I think teaching his works at secondary school level is largely counter-productive because A) it puts a lot of kids off of not only Shakespeare but also all literature for life and B) the English is archaic and not particularly helpful for learning English language.

More important than any other consideration is getting as many kids as possible engaged with their education, Shakespeare is more alienating than engaging at secondary level.

 

[agrajagthetesty]

You not being able to remember the names of the very people you claim to have had such an enormous impact kind of damages your argument. And a story being interesting doesn't necessarily mean it will have more of an impact over history than a less interesting one.

That said, I would agree that a lot of old myths like that of Theseus are more imaginative than Shakespeare's plots. However, I'm fairly certain that myths like that weren't the product of a single writer, but rather were told and re-told, being constantly reinterpreted and contributed to. In this way they're more the product of a culture than an individual.

To be fair the original writers were in the BCs and their names were lost to antiquity before people became interested in history again. And the greeks and romans wrote great tragedies and social satire that kicked off the whole art that Shakespeare used. Shakespeare's plots can probably be traced back to earlier works but the older works probably no longer exist. I just find it extremely difficult to believe one man can be credited with inventing modern creative writing.

Just checked some of my textbooks and the famous greeks were the likes of Sophocles and Euripides.

Again, I don't consider it valid to compare Shakespeare (one man) with "the likes of Sophocles and Euripides" (two named men with others also involved). Whilst the Greek and Roman dramatic tradition did indeed inspire much of the art to follow, I doubt this can be attributed to any individual. Even with the named examples, the overlapping influences make it impossible to assign responsibility for the impact on literary history to a particular person. It's most likely irrelevant in any case, since the problem applies to both time periods.

As for inventing modern creative writing, I don't remember anyone making that claim, and I certainly don't see it myself. It's rather a vague phrase, especially in terms of what you define to be "modern" and in what way Shakespeare is claimed to "invent" it (structure? plot? character? message?) but whatever way you define it I would agree that it's too large an achievement for one man.

 

[Cody211282]

there are some people who like it, for me it will always be boring as hell.

 

[Carnagath]

I'd have to write a 2000 word post about my thoughts on Shakespeare, but noone would read it, so I'll just say this: I undestand why some youngsters out there find him boring and unfunny. I'm not even going to go into the importance of his plays and the influence that they've had, because that's a given, but the truth is that his work is sadly not relevant for a young person living in 2010. It's true that he has dealt with many, many things that are timeless, but one would have to look for them and wade through concepts that are dysfunctional today.

This does not diminish the value and importance of his work in any way of course, nor does it make it any less impressive that he managed to write so frequently and with such astounding quality while living in a period of time when people were dumping their own sewage on the streets. Each era however needs its own artists. His were times of noble ideals, bravery and love. We live in a time of over-information, worldwide manipulation, emotional numbness, social dysfuntion and isolation, with no ideals or people to look up to, in a world of grey morality and cheap gratification. If Shakespeare lived today, he would have probably killed himself or written nothing because he'd be working 9 to 9 and getting paid for 9 to 5. The writing that I personally find relevant today is sharp rather than lyrical, it aims to make you bleed and wake you up rather than caress your senses gently.

 

[MKScorpion]

Your lack of grammar, good sir, combined with your frequent misspellings and deduced lack of intelligence, has led me to believe that you are a ninny! A twit! In other words, a quite silly man that I shall spend no more time talking to. Good day, sir!

Is it strange that I read that in my mind with a British accent?

 

[Carnagath]

Your lack of grammar, good sir, combined with your frequent misspellings and deduced lack of intelligence, has led me to believe that you are a ninny! A twit! In other words, a quite silly man that I shall spend no more time talking to. Good day, sir!

Is it strange that I read that in my mind with a British accent?

A British accent, a top hat and a monocle.

 

[Littlee300]

Your lack of grammar, good sir, combined with your frequent misspellings and deduced lack of intelligence, has led me to believe that you are a ninny! A twit! In other words, a quite silly man that I shall spend no more time talking to. Good day, sir!

Might as well of said "I am too good for you" /:
________________________________________________________
I hear people are still ripping off Romeo and Juliet till this day so I guess he is if people are ripping off his work even after centuries.

 

[Breadroller]

He is to the English language, what Sir Isaac Newton was to physics.
While it is perfectly understandable to dislike reading his works, it is in my opinion that you completely lack comprehension of his contributions.

 

[Ickorus]

I personally don't like his work but I can understand why others do.

I just wish they didn't force kids to study it at school, 2 years of Shakespeare is not what I call fun.

I mean the thing is, I read loads of books, I read books when I was at school and i'd even sometimes read one of my books in class. The teacher spotted me reading once and asked me why I do so bad in class when I obviously read a lot and I told her quiet bluntly that I find shakespeare to be boring and that it takes too long to get anywhere. (Quiet ironic considering my favourite author is often criticized for having a slower style of writing)

They should let kids do Tolkien or Terry Pratchett instead.

That is the problem that a lot of students have. They think that school is there to entertain them, when it actuality it is there to educate them.

The reason Shakespeare is taught so much is because he effected the English language greatly. Yes writers that you read yourself maybe popular or great writers, but that doesn't make them education worthy in the regular eduction sense.

Shakespeare was clever and witty with his writing and made a grand impact on society which has effected it to this day and the future to come. So, it is obvious to see why he is widely taught in schools. The teachers hope that some of his genius will rub off on their students and maybe the students will try and make the world richer and more interesting like Shakespeare did.

And my problem with it extends directly from the 'It's not interesting, it's educational' argument.

If a writer is great and has written a very well written and interesting book then they should use that book, it could be about anything so long as the kids find it engaging because when you find something engaging and interesting you tend to work much harder than when you're forced to work on something you find dull.

My personal example would be with my college work, one of my units at the moment is programming in C++ and I find all programming extremely boring, I can do it adequately but I feel no drive to improve myself beyond scraping a pass for the unit. On the other hand I do a hardware course and I absolutely love working with hardware so i've worked hard on that and easily achieved a distinction in the unit because I wanted to do the work.

Don't get me wrong though, I understand completely where you are coming from but I disagree when it comes to things they can improve upon without compromising the integrity of the subject.