Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Failing to teach native English speakers about Shakespeare would be like if Italian kids read no Dante, or if Chinese children didn’t read Li Bai or Du Fu.

Also, Shakespeare is remarkable in how well it holds up even now. Yes, there is racism and misogyny (obviously) but way less than you’d expect and often happens in ways that provide useful jumping off points for discussing these issues. Reading Merchant of Venice and discussing anti-Sémitism is worthwhile. Othello raises a ton of issues- anti-black racism, colorism, Christian bias. Taming if the Shrew an opportunity to discuss misogyny. In many ways, approaching these concepts through Shakespeare is useful in helping kids see how old snd persistent these issues are.

And other plays are just masterpieces. Macbeth, Hamlet, Much Ado… these are classics for a reason and I’d rather kids read Shakespeare then almost any other dead white guy. Certainly preferable to Chaucer.

The only reason people think that Shakespeare is the pinnacle of English language achievement is because they've only been exposed to a very limited amount of great English literature.

Au contraire, my friend. I would argue that the most well-read would consider Shakespeare to be “the pinnacle”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Failing to teach native English speakers about Shakespeare would be like if Italian kids read no Dante, or if Chinese children didn’t read Li Bai or Du Fu.

Also, Shakespeare is remarkable in how well it holds up even now. Yes, there is racism and misogyny (obviously) but way less than you’d expect and often happens in ways that provide useful jumping off points for discussing these issues. Reading Merchant of Venice and discussing anti-Sémitism is worthwhile. Othello raises a ton of issues- anti-black racism, colorism, Christian bias. Taming if the Shrew an opportunity to discuss misogyny. In many ways, approaching these concepts through Shakespeare is useful in helping kids see how old snd persistent these issues are.

And other plays are just masterpieces. Macbeth, Hamlet, Much Ado… these are classics for a reason and I’d rather kids read Shakespeare then almost any other dead white guy. Certainly preferable to Chaucer.

The only reason people think that Shakespeare is the pinnacle of English language achievement is because they've only been exposed to a very limited amount of great English literature.

PP here. I don't think Shakespeare is the pinnacle of English language achievement. Ninety percent of the books I read today (and I'm a writer, I read a lot) are by women and POC, both contemporary and not. A significant number are translations. We live in the age of the immigrant narrative and I am so grateful for it. I would probably not even list Shakespeare among my top 5 or 10 writers of all time, though I do have a certain soft spot for a few Shakespearean soliloquies.

But learning Shakespeare in high school and college was invaluable to me. What Shakespeare did with the English language was transformative for the language, which is why I think the comparison to Dante is correct. Many/most Italians would not consider Dante the pinnacle of Italian language either, by the way. But he created a bridge between the language of the elites (Latin) and the language spoken by every day people in Florence at the time. He basically invented Italian as a written language. Shakespeare didn't do exactly that (that really was more Chaucer's milieu, and as I noted, I don't really like Chaucer), but he brought the glory of the English language to the people through his plays and married a high minded literary tradition to the bawdy, humorous, language of the masses in a sophisticated way. He wrote sonnets and he wrote sex jokes. He is very much worth a read and earned his place in the pantheon, so to speak.

No one is saying "read Shakespeare but not Zora Neale Hurston." But still: read Shakespeare. It's worth it and kids should absolutely get an introduction to it in high school, if only through a couple of the plays.

Anonymous wrote:I am the original poster for this thread and I happened upon this in today’s Times Book Review and thought I would share. It might be of interest to some of you who classify Shakespeare as just another dead white guy that Denzel Washington is about to star in his portrayal of MacBeth, and Amanda Gorman counts Shakespeare as one of her favorite poets. Does this soften your opinion?

She says she could read Othello every day and keeps it on her nightstand. So I ask again why aren’t all of our DC students not learning these same works along with other great works of world literature?


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/09/books/review/amanda-gorman-by-the-book-interview.html

Because they're too hard. Duh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Failing to teach native English speakers about Shakespeare would be like if Italian kids read no Dante, or if Chinese children didn’t read Li Bai or Du Fu.

Also, Shakespeare is remarkable in how well it holds up even now. Yes, there is racism and misogyny (obviously) but way less than you’d expect and often happens in ways that provide useful jumping off points for discussing these issues. Reading Merchant of Venice and discussing anti-Sémitism is worthwhile. Othello raises a ton of issues- anti-black racism, colorism, Christian bias. Taming if the Shrew an opportunity to discuss misogyny. In many ways, approaching these concepts through Shakespeare is useful in helping kids see how old snd persistent these issues are.

And other plays are just masterpieces. Macbeth, Hamlet, Much Ado… these are classics for a reason and I’d rather kids read Shakespeare then almost any other dead white guy. Certainly preferable to Chaucer.

^ this. So many of the stories are just plain cool. You do need a good teacher though to guide you through the unfamiliar Elizabethan era language. I found that to be an impediment, but felt very satisfied when I got through Hamlet and McBeth in particular.

oops. Macbeth

Anonymous wrote:Failing to teach native English speakers about Shakespeare would be like if Italian kids read no Dante, or if Chinese children didn’t read Li Bai or Du Fu.

Also, Shakespeare is remarkable in how well it holds up even now. Yes, there is racism and misogyny (obviously) but way less than you’d expect and often happens in ways that provide useful jumping off points for discussing these issues. Reading Merchant of Venice and discussing anti-Sémitism is worthwhile. Othello raises a ton of issues- anti-black racism, colorism, Christian bias. Taming if the Shrew an opportunity to discuss misogyny. In many ways, approaching these concepts through Shakespeare is useful in helping kids see how old snd persistent these issues are.

And other plays are just masterpieces. Macbeth, Hamlet, Much Ado… these are classics for a reason and I’d rather kids read Shakespeare then almost any other dead white guy. Certainly preferable to Chaucer.

^ this. So many of the stories are just plain cool. You do need a good teacher though to guide you through the unfamiliar Elizabethan era language. I found that to be an impediment, but felt very satisfied when I got through Hamlet and McBeth in particular.

Anonymous wrote:Failing to teach native English speakers about Shakespeare would be like if Italian kids read no Dante, or if Chinese children didn’t read Li Bai or Du Fu.

Also, Shakespeare is remarkable in how well it holds up even now. Yes, there is racism and misogyny (obviously) but way less than you’d expect and often happens in ways that provide useful jumping off points for discussing these issues. Reading Merchant of Venice and discussing anti-Sémitism is worthwhile. Othello raises a ton of issues- anti-black racism, colorism, Christian bias. Taming if the Shrew an opportunity to discuss misogyny. In many ways, approaching these concepts through Shakespeare is useful in helping kids see how old snd persistent these issues are.

And other plays are just masterpieces. Macbeth, Hamlet, Much Ado… these are classics for a reason and I’d rather kids read Shakespeare then almost any other dead white guy. Certainly preferable to Chaucer.

The only reason people think that Shakespeare is the pinnacle of English language achievement is because they've only been exposed to a very limited amount of great English literature.

Anonymous wrote:Failing to teach native English speakers about Shakespeare would be like if Italian kids read no Dante, or if Chinese children didn’t read Li Bai or Du Fu.

Also, Shakespeare is remarkable in how well it holds up even now. Yes, there is racism and misogyny (obviously) but way less than you’d expect and often happens in ways that provide useful jumping off points for discussing these issues. Reading Merchant of Venice and discussing anti-Sémitism is worthwhile. Othello raises a ton of issues- anti-black racism, colorism, Christian bias. Taming if the Shrew an opportunity to discuss misogyny. In many ways, approaching these concepts through Shakespeare is useful in helping kids see how old snd persistent these issues are.

And other plays are just masterpieces. Macbeth, Hamlet, Much Ado… these are classics for a reason and I’d rather kids read Shakespeare then almost any other dead white guy. Certainly preferable to Chaucer.

Good points.

Failing to teach native English speakers about Shakespeare would be like if Italian kids read no Dante, or if Chinese children didn’t read Li Bai or Du Fu.

Also, Shakespeare is remarkable in how well it holds up even now. Yes, there is racism and misogyny (obviously) but way less than you’d expect and often happens in ways that provide useful jumping off points for discussing these issues. Reading Merchant of Venice and discussing anti-Sémitism is worthwhile. Othello raises a ton of issues- anti-black racism, colorism, Christian bias. Taming if the Shrew an opportunity to discuss misogyny. In many ways, approaching these concepts through Shakespeare is useful in helping kids see how old snd persistent these issues are.

And other plays are just masterpieces. Macbeth, Hamlet, Much Ado… these are classics for a reason and I’d rather kids read Shakespeare then almost any other dead white guy. Certainly preferable to Chaucer.

It is really really good- and the hosts were “Christian nerds”, the best students in Bible class, who, being very serious about it, started having all sorts of questions that went unanswered— because they pointed to the absurdity of taking the text literally and not allegorically/historically etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, no Bible.
Unless it’s being read as a fictional piece of work, which I assume will make some mad lol.
Might as well just do the Odyssey, it’s just like the Bible but people like to pretend it’s very different.

I think the difficulty in having it understood as a study of literature by parents (see: this thread) is enough to preclude it from public school. But ideally it should be part of any English lit curriculum.

No, it shouldn't. Kids today are barely learning at all, the last thing the need is filling up precious classroom time with more Jesus stories.

You grasp of complex ideas and canon is clear.

:waves white flag, gives up

I grew up reading Pushkin, Balzac and Voltaire, but nobody ever wagged their finger at me and said, "No, no, no, you first must read the Bible!" Maybe that's a uniquely American thing.

Nobody said you had to read the Bible first. That is a complete fabrication. But knowledge of Biblical stories and motifs is necessary for full education in English lit. Not sure why this seems to be at all controversial.

There’s a strong argument for not teaching things which people are very likely to encounter anyway.

But people aren't encountering them as much these days. I'm 32 and I went to a New England boarding school for high school. I only mention that to emphasize that my classmates were largely from very educated, affluent families. I took a bunch of philosophy electives and was shocked that I had to explain the temptation of Jesus by Satan when we read The Grand Inquisitor. There were a few other basic Bible stories I had to explain to my classmates in those courses. I can only imagine biblical knowledge has gotten worse since 2008.

good

What is your kid going to write when the test question in English class is to write an essay discussing the Biblical motifs and references in the novel they just read -- because that is a classic essay question for just about every work of literature. Same with mythology and the classics. Literature is full of these references, and if you miss them, what is the point of reading?

I will make my kids listen to the podcast “Go Home Bible you’re drunk” - they’ll learn the stories and get a few good laughs as well (hosted by ex-Evangelicals) https://www.irreverent.fm/show/go-home-bible-youre-drunk/

This sounds fantastic. Great way to be secular and teach about judeo Christian stuff

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, no Bible.
Unless it’s being read as a fictional piece of work, which I assume will make some mad lol.
Might as well just do the Odyssey, it’s just like the Bible but people like to pretend it’s very different.

I think the difficulty in having it understood as a study of literature by parents (see: this thread) is enough to preclude it from public school. But ideally it should be part of any English lit curriculum.

No, it shouldn't. Kids today are barely learning at all, the last thing the need is filling up precious classroom time with more Jesus stories.

You grasp of complex ideas and canon is clear.

:waves white flag, gives up

I grew up reading Pushkin, Balzac and Voltaire, but nobody ever wagged their finger at me and said, "No, no, no, you first must read the Bible!" Maybe that's a uniquely American thing.

Nobody said you had to read the Bible first. That is a complete fabrication. But knowledge of Biblical stories and motifs is necessary for full education in English lit. Not sure why this seems to be at all controversial.

There’s a strong argument for not teaching things which people are very likely to encounter anyway.

But people aren't encountering them as much these days. I'm 32 and I went to a New England boarding school for high school. I only mention that to emphasize that my classmates were largely from very educated, affluent families. I took a bunch of philosophy electives and was shocked that I had to explain the temptation of Jesus by Satan when we read The Grand Inquisitor. There were a few other basic Bible stories I had to explain to my classmates in those courses. I can only imagine biblical knowledge has gotten worse since 2008.

good

What is your kid going to write when the test question in English class is to write an essay discussing the Biblical motifs and references in the novel they just read -- because that is a classic essay question for just about every work of literature. Same with mythology and the classics. Literature is full of these references, and if you miss them, what is the point of reading?

I will make my kids listen to the podcast “Go Home Bible you’re drunk” - they’ll learn the stories and get a few good laughs as well (hosted by ex-Evangelicals) https://www.irreverent.fm/show/go-home-bible-youre-drunk/

cliff notes are good enough for that

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, no Bible.
Unless it’s being read as a fictional piece of work, which I assume will make some mad lol.
Might as well just do the Odyssey, it’s just like the Bible but people like to pretend it’s very different.

I think the difficulty in having it understood as a study of literature by parents (see: this thread) is enough to preclude it from public school. But ideally it should be part of any English lit curriculum.

No, it shouldn't. Kids today are barely learning at all, the last thing the need is filling up precious classroom time with more Jesus stories.

You grasp of complex ideas and canon is clear.

:waves white flag, gives up

I grew up reading Pushkin, Balzac and Voltaire, but nobody ever wagged their finger at me and said, "No, no, no, you first must read the Bible!" Maybe that's a uniquely American thing.

Nobody said you had to read the Bible first. That is a complete fabrication. But knowledge of Biblical stories and motifs is necessary for full education in English lit. Not sure why this seems to be at all controversial.

There’s a strong argument for not teaching things which people are very likely to encounter anyway.

But people aren't encountering them as much these days. I'm 32 and I went to a New England boarding school for high school. I only mention that to emphasize that my classmates were largely from very educated, affluent families. I took a bunch of philosophy electives and was shocked that I had to explain the temptation of Jesus by Satan when we read The Grand Inquisitor. There were a few other basic Bible stories I had to explain to my classmates in those courses. I can only imagine biblical knowledge has gotten worse since 2008.

good

What is your kid going to write when the test question in English class is to write an essay discussing the Biblical motifs and references in the novel they just read -- because that is a classic essay question for just about every work of literature. Same with mythology and the classics. Literature is full of these references, and if you miss them, what is the point of reading?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, no Bible.
Unless it’s being read as a fictional piece of work, which I assume will make some mad lol.
Might as well just do the Odyssey, it’s just like the Bible but people like to pretend it’s very different.

I think the difficulty in having it understood as a study of literature by parents (see: this thread) is enough to preclude it from public school. But ideally it should be part of any English lit curriculum.

No, it shouldn't. Kids today are barely learning at all, the last thing the need is filling up precious classroom time with more Jesus stories.

You grasp of complex ideas and canon is clear.

:waves white flag, gives up

I grew up reading Pushkin, Balzac and Voltaire, but nobody ever wagged their finger at me and said, "No, no, no, you first must read the Bible!" Maybe that's a uniquely American thing.

Nobody said you had to read the Bible first. That is a complete fabrication. But knowledge of Biblical stories and motifs is necessary for full education in English lit. Not sure why this seems to be at all controversial.

There’s a strong argument for not teaching things which people are very likely to encounter anyway.

But people aren't encountering them as much these days. I'm 32 and I went to a New England boarding school for high school. I only mention that to emphasize that my classmates were largely from very educated, affluent families. I took a bunch of philosophy electives and was shocked that I had to explain the temptation of Jesus by Satan when we read The Grand Inquisitor. There were a few other basic Bible stories I had to explain to my classmates in those courses. I can only imagine biblical knowledge has gotten worse since 2008.

good

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, no Bible.
Unless it’s being read as a fictional piece of work, which I assume will make some mad lol.
Might as well just do the Odyssey, it’s just like the Bible but people like to pretend it’s very different.

I think the difficulty in having it understood as a study of literature by parents (see: this thread) is enough to preclude it from public school. But ideally it should be part of any English lit curriculum.

No, it shouldn't. Kids today are barely learning at all, the last thing the need is filling up precious classroom time with more Jesus stories.

You grasp of complex ideas and canon is clear.

:waves white flag, gives up

I grew up reading Pushkin, Balzac and Voltaire, but nobody ever wagged their finger at me and said, "No, no, no, you first must read the Bible!" Maybe that's a uniquely American thing.

Nobody said you had to read the Bible first. That is a complete fabrication. But knowledge of Biblical stories and motifs is necessary for full education in English lit. Not sure why this seems to be at all controversial.

There’s a strong argument for not teaching things which people are very likely to encounter anyway.

But people aren't encountering them as much these days. I'm 32 and I went to a New England boarding school for high school. I only mention that to emphasize that my classmates were largely from very educated, affluent families. I took a bunch of philosophy electives and was shocked that I had to explain the temptation of Jesus by Satan when we read The Grand Inquisitor. There were a few other basic Bible stories I had to explain to my classmates in those courses. I can only imagine biblical knowledge has gotten worse since 2008.