[davem]

Originally Posted by obloquy

That's because the poetry of Shakespeare is not what's going to interest kids. The idea is that the things that happen in the plays are exciting, but kids rarely realize that because the language is virtually impenetrable to the novice. If an interest can be created, Shakespeare can be taught; if not, he's not the kind of author you can force down a kid's throat just by making his work required reading.

If you're only going to teach kids what interests them they're going to learn nothing. If the language is 'impenetrable' to them (& we're not talking about 5 year olds here, but older children & teens) its because the kind of literature they're exposed to is so dire. Shakespeare is modern English. Mind you, I've seen Milton & Bunyan dismissed as 'impenetrable' too.

And the whole point I'm making, btw, is not that young children should be thrown in at the deep end & given no help in understanding Shakespeare. If you look at the links to the animated Shakespeare I gave earlier, you'll see some very clever ways 'in'. The problem with these versions is not that they give children a way 'in', but that they focus purely on plot & not on poetry. This is like trying to teach about Wordsworth by producing comic books full of pictures of clouds & daffodils.

Which is bad in your opinion, but things have to be left out of curriculum and your assessment of Shakespeare as necessary for the average teenager may not be all that well-considered. Shakespeare is not fundamental to education. He is a luxury, and an introduction to his plays via a medium that kids are familiar with is better than nothing.

And what is 'necessary' then? Stuff that has 'practical' uses, which will enable them to pass exams & get jobs? If you can't use it to get on then its optional?

Those lazy, incompetent teachers. They should have their pay cut. Tell me, do you think they're having difficulty teaching Shakespeare to children because they do not understand him themselves and have no idea how to teach his work? Or is it, perhaps, because most kids in school have almost zero interest in reading anything? Kids get out of school what they put into it.

I think its the former in some cases. And, sorry, but its the teachers' job to teach.

You're imagining a distinction where there isn't one. I'd like to see the data you're referencing. Did you have to extract samples of Dylan and Keats themselves, or were you able to run the tests using pieces of their published materials? I'm really eager to see how the inherent value of these artists' work can be quantified and compared. Because unless you can do that, you're talking about opinion and taste, regardless of how many other opinions validate yours.

So, anything goes. There are no objective standards by which we judge quality. A trashy soap opera is equivalent to Hamlet if you think it is? Nothing is objectively better than anything else? Is the 'quick' comic book version of Henry V as good as the original? If so, why bother with the original at all? Why bother moving on to the original - why not just stick with the quick version then?

And yet, we seem to be going round in circles here. We'll probably have to agree to disagree.

Or to get back to Tolkien - is 'boss' a good translation of 'master'? Or would 'Meister' be better?