Turn on thread page Beta

Should students be forced to study shakespeare watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clockworkapples)
    You are welcome to hold that opinion but I just find it utterly insane.
    Insane is quite right! How on earth a writer who invented hundreds of words and phrases that are still used today, a writer so well-loved and appreciated he's still published hundreds of years after his death, a writer valued by millions of readers, drama fans, academics and actors as one of the most important people to have ever existed can ever, ever be considered "Not that good" is ****ing insane!

    It's fair enough if you don't LIKE Shakespeare. Too many people are put off by the language after all.. but to say that he "isn't that good" is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard.

    I mean, I personally don't like gold jewellery with big blinging diamonds on top.. but to say huge diamond rings are worth 10p is stupid and it's exactly what is being said in reference to Shakespeare.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Yes. He is genius and if you're going to learn anything, you'll study him.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silken1987)
    I like Shakespear! but to be honest I think it should be compulsory up until year 10 and then it should be an optional unit
    Hmm. I'm not sure I agree. I think you need to be a bit older to be able to get into Shakespeare. I mean some of the language is actually quite difficult so expecting 11 year olds not to hate it is a bit of a stretch I think. I don't think anyone would pick it if they'd had bad experiences with it, which you are almost certain to get if you are forced into it before you are ready.

    I think maybe they should get rid of it for SATs but have it for GCSE and then maybe one compulsory Shakespeare unit in the whole Eng Lit A-level (I did it twice, once at AS and once at A2 but I think that was a choice on the part of my English teachers).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    yes? What are you people on! Shakespearian work is crazy - ban it!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F. Poste)
    And it's probably the most ignorant and ill-informed "opinion" on literature I've ever seen!
    Its the truth, at least from my perspective. The present is always the best time to be, even if you can't see it. Here writers have all the past influences to go towards their work, all the things that have gone before. Just because some works now are utter trash, because they try to appeal to certain types of people, there are also works that are better than anything that Shakespeare could even dream of. More emotive, more inventive, mor thought provoking, more humerous, more absolutely everything you could want from reading.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The "insane" comment also refered to the idea that there is no value in studying old writers. Modern literature would be meaningless on it's own, you need to look at the bigger picture in my opinion. And not relevant? How are you supposed to really understand the world and your culture if you have no idea of the steps we took to get here? Literature isn't just a bunch of long-winded stories. All those texts hold the ideas and values of that time. You surely wouldn't suggest that there's no value in knowing any history before, say, 1900 would you? Then you can't cut off literature either.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eru)
    there are also works that are better than anything that Shakespeare could even dream of
    Any examples? You have to qualify a comment like that!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F. Poste)
    Insane is quite right! How on earth a writer who invented hundreds of words and phrases that are still used today, a writer so well-loved and appreciated he's still published hundreds of years after his death, a writer valued by millions of readers, drama fans, academics and actors as one of the most important people to have ever existed can ever, ever be considered "Not that good" is ****ing insane!

    It's fair enough if you don't LIKE Shakespeare. Too many people are put off by the language after all.. but to say that he "isn't that good" is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard.

    I mean, I personally don't like gold jewellery with big blinging diamonds on top.. but to say huge diamond rings are worth 10p is stupid and it's exactly what is being said in reference to Shakespeare.
    I completely disagree. There is a huge difference between saying you don't like osmething, and saying something isn't good. I am not an imbecile, and i genuinely think that Shakespeare isn't all that good.

    Most people, to me, seem to like shakespeare, not on its merits, but because its been ingraned into them, by forcing his works onto them at a young age, and trying to get people to believe something based on not genuine ability, but some sort of misconcieved public image of him, as most people who want people to read shakespeare, haven't even read it themselves.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clockworkapples)
    The "insane" comment also refered to the idea that there is no value in studying old writers. Modern literature would be meaningless on it's own, you need to look at the bigger picture in my opinion. And not relevant? How are you supposed to really understand the world and your culture if you have no idea of the steps we took to get here? Literature isn't just a bunch of long-winded stories. All those texts hold the ideas and values of that time. You surely wouldn't suggest that there's no value in knowing any history before, say, 1900 would you? Then you can't cut off literature either.
    I never said there is no value in studying old writers, but firstly, doing so isn't something that should be forced onto children at the sort of ages they do now, it should be for people who seriously want to study literature, and secondly, too much emphasis is put on past writing, and the past in general, in my opinion. History is all well and good, but how do people expect new thigns to be created in a culture so backwards facing?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clockworkapples)
    Any examples? You have to qualify a comment like that!
    Its hard to do, as literature is a personal thing, and different people like different things. My favourite pieces of writing may not be the best written, but that isn't why i like them.

    But you only have to look at the scope of the written word now, to see that there is so much beyond what shakespeare has written.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would have said that we shouldn't have to study shakespeare, but someone mentioned that we have to study the periodic table and algebra and so on, regardless of whether we like it because those topics are crucial to their respective subjects. I'm personally not a fan of Shakespeare...I honestly found it incredibly hard to understand when we watched the film version. Even in written form, I struggled a great deal, but I somehow managed to do an essay on it because of what we discussed in class, and what I saw(not heard!) in the film version.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spider)
    I would have said that we shouldn't have to study shakespeare, but someone mentioned that we have to study the periodic table, and algebra and so on, regardless of whether we like it, because those topic are crucial to their respectiev subjects. I'm personally not a fan of Shakespeare...I honestly found it incredibly hard to understand when we watched a film. Even in writtem form, I struggled a great deal, but I somehow managed to do an esay on it because of what we discussed in class, and what I saw(not heard!) in the film version.
    Science and maths are things based in logic and reason, while literature most certainly isn't, so the argument doesn't carry any weight in my opinion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eru)
    I completely disagree. There is a huge difference between saying you don't like osmething, and saying something isn't good. I am not an imbecile, and i genuinely think that Shakespeare isn't all that good.

    Most people, to me, seem to like shakespeare, not on its merits, but because its been ingraned into them, by forcing his works onto them at a young age, and trying to get people to believe something based on not genuine ability, but some sort of misconcieved public image of him, as most people who want people to read shakespeare, haven't even read it themselves.
    I was SAYING that there's a huge difference between claiming you don't like something and claiming something isn't good. You're ignorant by claiming the latter.

    I'm an English student and I've actually read most Shakespeare's plays and lots of the sonnets, and studied several of the plays in depth. If you've done the same, then let's talk. Seeing as you've obviously done the same, let's talk about why he's not good, and I'd be interested to hear who is "better".. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F. Poste)
    I was SAYING that there's a huge difference between claiming you don't like something and claiming something isn't good. You're ignorant by claiming the latter.

    I'm an English student and I've actually read most Shakespeare's plays and lots of the sonnets, and studied several of the plays in depth. If you've done the same, then let's talk. Seeing as you've obviously done the same, let's talk about why he's not good, and I'd be interested to hear who is "better".. :rolleyes:
    But you were talking as if i didn't know the difference between the two, which i do.
    I haven't studied english literature at a high level, mostly because of Shakespeare in all honesty. I was so sick of his convoluted writing style, that i couldn't bring myself to study english any further, while it was still forced onto people to study.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eru)
    Science and maths are things based in logic and reason, while literature most certainly isn't, so the argument doesn't carry any weight in my opinion.
    *bangs head against wall* You know **** all about literature! Why are you still talking?!

    Shakespeare is one of the most important people in English literature and language. He influenced everyone using the English language today, and every writer. His worth is UNDENIABLE.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eru)
    But you were talking as if i didn't know the difference between the two, which i do.
    I haven't studied english literature at a high level, mostly because of Shakespeare in all honesty. I was so sick of his convoluted writing style, that i couldn't bring myself to study english any further, while it was still forced onto people to study.
    You can appreciate the difference on an obtuse level, but you don't seem to be able to apply it.

    It's obvious that you're determined to toot your trumpet on Shakespeare just because you tried it once and didn't like it, so I'm not going to argue with you any more as you obviously don't have a clue what you're on about.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F. Poste)
    *bangs head against wall* You know **** all about literature! Why are you still talking?!

    Shakespeare is one of the most important people in English literature and language. He influenced everyone using the English language today, and every writer. His worth is UNDENIABLE.
    I do know some things about literature. I haven't studied it at a high level, but that doesn't mean that i cannot have an opinion on it. I have read a number of his works, so i am not talking from ignorance, though i have certainly not read as many as you, and do not claim otherwise.

    In my opinion, his importance is not as much as people make out. There are writers beyond the ability to count who have written many many pieces, some great, some awful, and to put such a value on one of them to me seems narrow minded.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F. Poste)
    You can appreciate the difference on an obtuse level, but you don't seem to be able to apply it.

    It's obvious that you're determined to toot your trumpet on Shakespeare just because you tried it once and didn't like it, so I'm not going to argue with you any more as you obviously don't have a clue what you're on about.
    No, not at all. I only voiced my opinion in the first place because i thought that was the entire point of this thread, and also, to a large extent, this entire forum, and there seems to be such a large support for shakespeare, that it is important that there is an strong opposite to this viewpoint. And if shakespeare is so good, then why have so many writers even bothered to write since then? If shakespeare is so absolute, and people cannot have an opinion against him, why bother with any creative works beyond his time?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Not important?! I'm afraid you're talking out of your arse. Do you even know how much he changed and added to the English language, for a start?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eru)
    In my opinion, its pointless to study much older work, as this iss not only irrelivent to the students, it is also not as good as modern pieces of writing, in my opinion.
    I personally find Medieval literature to be rich, interesting and much more vivid and engaging than a lot of modern literature.

    And as for Shakespeare not being very good... :rolleyes:
 
 
 
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.