I keep having this discussion, and I am fascinated by other people’s answers, so I’m putting it out again:
Should we be teaching Shakespeare’s plays in high school in Canada? Why? What is the value to our students and our communities? Does their value rely on specific cultural membership or is it truly universal?
What of it should we teach? Word for word, line for line, just the movie, just the ideas?
One part of this discussion that I just heard was that King Lear was recently added to the recommended list in Saskatchewan’s grade 12 curriculum at the request of First Nations shareholders. They believe it is valuable as a text that deals with the consequences of dishonouring and losing sight of the value of elders.
Have at. This is what comment sections are made for.
Shakespeare should be taught, but not exclusively. It would be shameful to teach Shakespeare, but leave out Dante or Chaucer. I do think, however, that its emphasis is entirely misused. It no longer applies to modern-day English, just as works in Old English no longer apply. We are teaching a dead dialect simply because it used to be popular. (Yes, you will find Shakespeare lovers, but their numbers are on the decline.) It should be taught in the context of theater or language history, but not in the context of use of today’s English, unless it is approached with less emphasis than it usually receives.
Exposure to the language’s history is invaluable. The breadth of subjects within the collection is staggering. Perhaps there is value in finding more accessible language to convey its messages — many of its reimaginings are up to the task (Taymor, Duckman).
What I object to is teaching it as literature, if only because it is theatre. It seems wasteful to have it lie on the page. Yes, students are able to watch films (or, rarely, performances), but the same is true of films of famous novels. If its inherent dramatism is incorporated in the same way as dramatizations of non-dramatic works, then I don’t think it’s really been taught.
Can’t agree that it doesn’t apply to modern-day English. Language without a body of resonant imagery is thin and weak. Can we have a new canon? Sure — pick one and keep any hint of Shakespeare’s influence out of it. We do not follow the Igbo way (per Achebe): “Sayings are the honey with which words are eaten.” Cliche, to us, is not incorruptible honey, but putrefying cake.
So what do we have to bind our words together? An endless series of rebirths, where one author midwives his predecessor’s theme, preserving it and rejuvenating it. For that reason, maybe the readers of our mother’s generation ought to be the backbone of teaching Shakespeare in English Class. Perhaps scripts should be taught in another class entirely.