/lit/ - Literature

>>6699696
Honestly, can you blame them? The argument of the ''long dead British guy'' is annoying, sure, but why do kids read Shakespeare? I'm not British, so I've never had to read anything by him, nor have I, but from what I've heard it's complicated and riddled with allusions the kids will never ever understand. Why not have them read something else? If you have to explain allusions they sound stupid, so might as well give them a chance at an artist that doesn't require this.

>>6699705

>the kids will never ever understand

Maybe you're just stupid.
That teacher is probably stupid as well.
Plebs shouldn't be allowed to 'educate'.

>>6699705
>I'm not British, so I've never had to read anything by him, nor have I
the fuck? i'm from based USA and we read Hamlet, romeo and juliet, and othello
>muh dead brittish guy
are they gonna stop having kids read chaucer too?

>>6699696
>>6699705
It's a shame that people are misunderstanding the underlying importance of Shakespeare: the intertextual influence on modern art ubiquitous in pastiches and homages. High school need provide a solid stepping stone for higher education. How doomed these students will be if they don't learn Shakespeare and are confronted with Shakespearean themes and types. One way Shakespeare was enhanced for me in high school was through cinema, which led me to discovering Orson Welles, Polanski, West Side Story, etc. Just my 2 cents.

>>6699696
>written in an early form of the English language
How did she become an English teacher? ?

>>6699705
>I'm not British, so I've never had to read anything by him, nor have I

I am a Brazilian man from the Amazon region and I have read all the comedies, the tragedies, and some of the historical plays when I was a teenager. You should be ashamed.

> I've heard it's complicated and riddled with allusions

I've heard mathematics is complicated and riddled with complex equations. Let us stop teaching our kids how to math.

>>6699696

>a long-dead, British guy

And right there is the line. We see it again and again. Variants of "old dead white men".

This stories aren't all coincidental. There is a new agenda at play here. These people are toeing the new party line.

>>6699696

>a long-dead, British guy

And right there is the line. We see it again and again. Variants of "old dead white men".

These stories aren't all coincidental. There is a new agenda at play here. These people are toeing the new party line.

lel what a dumb bitch. we had to read and perform romeo and juliet in 6th grade. fucking white people will be their own demise

>>6699766
By fighting against opression.

>>6699749
Although that is true, I don't even think that is the point.

The point is this: Shakespeare is good. The end.

One of the saddest facts about modern education is that English teachers are trying to justify their work by appealing to external values, instead of purely aesthetic ones. They want to teach literature because it makes you 'a better person' (not true), because it 'expands your horizons' (you don't need literature for it), because 'it makes you grow as a human being' (nonsense).

However, none of that lazy talk should matter in the teaching of literature. The only thing that matters is LITERARY MERIT in itself, because LITERATURE IS AN END IN ITSELF, NOT A MEANS TO AN END.

>>6699733
>the fuck? i'm from based USA and we read Hamlet, romeo and juliet, and othello
Just because a British colony reads Shakespeare doesn't mean everyone does. Of course you look to the Brits, it's the closest thing to a cultural history you have.

>>6699801
ayy lmao

>>6699791

>However, none of that lazy talk should matter in the teaching of literature. The only thing that matters is LITERARY MERIT in itself, because LITERATURE IS AN END IN ITSELF, NOT A MEANS TO AN END.

Wishful thinking in this new age of identity politics. It's all symbol over substance bullshit.

>>6699696
>the needs of my very ethnically-diverse and wonderfully curious modern-day students.

So they're replacing Shakespeare with The House on Mango Street? Awesome.

>>6699791
Your answer is alien to the purpose of modern education. This woman's ethnically diverse and inner-city classroom is still insufficient in experience and knowledge to provide for themselves.
Literature as an end in itself (writing, and appreciation thereof) is notoriously inefficient at producing material benefit.

While I agree that none of those statements are true, and that none of them should matter in the teaching of literature, what OP's post is indicative of is a problem with the teaching of literature itself.

Since these children are currently in a state where literature itself benefits them very little, why teach it to them?

>>6699805
What do you mean? You think it is wishful thinking to say that Shakespeare should be taught solely based on literary merit? It's more like hopeful thinking, I think.

The real wishful thinking lies in the idea that literature will help you grow. It will not. A simple travel to Africa or some other despicable nowhere land will make you much more conscious of social problems and the limits of 'human horizons' than any Langston Hughes poem.

>>6699813
p.s: I think that the education system's dysfunction is related to this strange melange of classical and functional priorities.

If we seek to produce a refined and masterful student of the arts, we can do so. However, the mass education of children does not exist for this purpose.

It also follows that it seems absurd to attempt to produce the well-measured connoisseur from that which is insufficient to our material society, especially when the role of the well-measured connoisseur is in low demand.

>>6699813
Gosh, you write very badly. Are you a newspaper columnist?

>Since these children are currently in a state where literature itself benefits them very little, why teach it to them?

For no reason whatsoever. That's why literature and the humanities should be removed from the curriculum of publich schools. Let those who want to study it pay for it in private schools, or let them go to publich libraries and learn things on their own for free.

I'm against any kind of compulsory education, including maths and science. Most people who go to school don't learn anything anyway.

>>6699830
Really? I write very badly? I thought my English was fine.

>>6699733
>the fuck? i'm from based USA and we read Hamlet, romeo and juliet, and othello
>my native tongue is English, and I've read English lit!
Americans...
>>6699749
It's not like that for everyone, though. Most people just want to read John Green. I would've loved it if they made me read Homer, and introduced me to classical literature, but many wouldn't have. People simply don't care. They just want fun stories. Especially kids.
>>6699780
>I've heard mathematics is complicated and riddled with complex equations. Let us stop teaching our kids how to math.
Completely wrong comparison. Maths is understandable on its own, with its own rules. You don't need to spend weeks reading the classics, learning Latin and Greek, learning Old English accents for the puns, and generally having life experience to comprehend classical literature for maths.

>>6699830

>That's why literature and the humanities should be removed from the curriculum

So not only do you want literature and the humanities removed from the curriculum.

>I'm against any kind of compulsory education, including maths and science.

But you also want math and science not to be taught to students who don't wish to learn it.

Brilliant.

We might as well scrap public schooling altogether then. Or better yet just make public schooling one day-long lunch break. Kids all seem to enjoy that enough.

Holy fuck are you libertarians woeful dullards at times.

>>6699791
If literature is a means in and of itself, then its not clear why it should be taught seriously to anyone but those who want to learn it seriously. Nothing to say of the racial characteristics of the writer.

And not to say it's not a legitimate hobby. But hobbies are specifically tasks we amuse ourselves with, and are seen as arbitrarily chosen and unimportant in its results. This means they can be taught arbitrarily. Making a fun finger painting and accurately depicting an important facet of human nature in sculpture are equivalent in an art class for the all students. It doesn't even matter if the result is good. Grading the class is just as absurd.

If literature is an end in and of itself, emphasizing fun is how English class should be taught. If it's taught at all. It's just not a serious field of study.

>>6699841
Yes. Just look how it can be simplified into a more natural writing:

>Your answer is alien to the purpose of modern education. This woman's ethnically diverse and inner-city classroom is still insufficient in experience and knowledge to provide for themselves.

''Your answer does not take in consideration the utilitarian purposes of modern education. This woman works in a inner-city, ethnically diverse classroom, and her students do not yet have enough knowledge and experience to provide for themselves.''

>Literature as an end in itself (writing, and appreciation thereof) is notoriously inefficient at producing material benefit.

''Literature as an end in itself is not very good at producing material benefits''.

>>6699696
I bet if shakespeare had been a woman she'd be saying the complete opposite thing.

>>6699879

>This woman works in a
"an", not "a'
>inner-city
no hyphen in inner city

even when you try to play the pedant you trip over yourself you sperged out loser lol

>>6699879

>This woman works in a
"an", not "a"
>inner-city
no hyphen in inner city

even when you try to play the pedant you trip over yourself you sperged out loser lol

>>6699857
>If literature is an end in and of itself, emphasizing fun is how English class should be taught. If it's taught at all. It's just not a serious field of study.

Teaching literature as a 'fun' subject simply ignores literature itself. It's like teaching science with Carl Sagan. You can't do it. Soon or later you will have to start using those boring math textbooks.

Same thing for literature: if one wishes to learn it, one will have to be a competent reader in at least two or three (relevant) languages, he will have to dedicate hours and hours in the study of related subjects like Medieval History, philosophy, and grammar, and so on.


I'm a libertarian, however, and I don't think the study of literature should be compulsory at all. I think it's good that people learn it, but I don't think it should be done by force.

But if it is to be done, then it should at least be done seriously.

>>6699903
>tfw I have to share an ideology with people this retarded

>>6699791
>They want to teach literature because it makes you 'a better person' (not true), because it 'expands your horizons' (you don't need literature for it), because 'it makes you grow as a human being' (nonsense).
I get that they're trying to instil these kids with liberal values, but I think most teachers are merely preaching to the choir at this point in pushing agenda through literature. They'd be so much better off actually teaching these kids about the elements of form or language, and even if shakespeare doesn't appeal to her, at least teach it in such a way that they understand traditional literary convention, to the point where they're capable of reading freeform poetry insofar as they know how the 'rules', so to speak, have been broken. To kick shakespeare out of the class is to be horribly imbalanced.

>implying students especially ones at the low-tier school she teachers at reads anything assigned in the first place

Reading challenging texts is the literary equivalent of running with ankle weights on.

When you have to read simpler more modern texts, your comprehension is vastly improved.

When will plebs learn?

Also, what's this progressive teacher going to assign instead? Poppy Z. Brite? The SCUM manifesto?

Also, very few of Shakespeare's plays are actually set in England, which goes to show that this wench complaining about the lack of cultural diversity in Shakespearian texts probably hasn't actually even read any of them.

I did Shakespeare in high school (Romeo & Juliet) and whilst I didn't hate it, I wouldn't say that I had a staunch lexigraphical hard on for it. But when I went back to the Bard later on I enjoyed him immensely. Would I have ever bothered to read Shakespeare if I had listened to people like the harlot in OP's link? Probably not.

We also did Iain Banks in School (Scotland) which was pretty cool.

>>6699895
Thanks, but English is not my first language and I don't care about comitting little mistakes. Also, the hyphen came from the guy I was quoting.

My problem was with his syntax rather than his orthography. Orthography mistakes don't make a post difficult to read (unless they occur very very often).

>>6699913
Good argument. It changed my worldview.

>>6699903

>I'm a libertarian

You're a classist bigot masquerading as a libertarian.

>That's why literature and the humanities should be removed from the curriculum of publich schools. Let those who want to study it pay for it in private schools

Yeah they should go to a private school to take up something as basic as the study of their own language. And if they can't afford entry into a private school then fuck those kids lol they won't be studying grammar any time soon.

>>6699939

>but English is not my first language

then don't try to arrogantly correct other posters you fucking suck at it you damage control basic bitch

>>6699696
>>I am a high school English teacher. I am not supposed to dislike Shakespeare. But I do.

This is irrelevant, a teacher isn't there to like things, he or she is there to educate children.

>And not only do I dislike Shakespeare because of my own personal disinterest in reading stories written in an early form of the English language

I'm not a native English speaker, but even I know that that isn't early English. And compared to what I had to read and how different it is to what my language is today Shakespeare is very similar to modern English.
You also dislike him because you have shit taste, probably in feminist and ya literature.

> that I cannot always easily navigate,

It isn't supposed to be easy, almost anything worthwhile in life is hard

>but also because there is a WORLD of really exciting literature out there that better speaks to the needs of my very ethnically-diverse and wonderfully curious modern-day students.

There really isn't. And even if it were that would be of no importance. You are also teaching English, not Indian or Tyvronne. And he isn't read because he speaks to children, but because he is one of the most important writers in history and most definitely in English language.

>I do not believe that I am “cheating” my students because we do not read Shakespeare.

You are. It's like skipping derivations in mathematics. Actually more like multiplication. You cannot understand a large part of literature without it.


> I do not believe that a long-dead, British guy is the only writer who can teach my students about the human condition.

He isn't the only one, but very few do it as great. And the human condition is also universal which makes the long dead remark almost as dumb as the rest of the text.

>>6699949
>And if they can't afford entry into a private school then fuck those kids lol they won't be studying grammar any time soon

Go read something about libertarianism.

>>6699959
>you fucking suck at it you damage control basic bitch

You're truly a master in the art of insult. Shakespeare's comic characters would be proud of you. But I don't need to master the little details of English ortography in order to recognize bad English syntax.

>>6699733
>are they gonna stop having kids read chaucer too?
I dunno about in the US but I'm fairly sure there are little to no schools that have Chaucer in the curriculum in the UK....

>>6699971

>Go read something about libertarianism.

Please. You are a blatant classist.

You say that you want literature and the humanities completely removed from public schooling, so answer this one question:

If you were to remove literature and the humanities completely from the public school curriculum, would you not also be denying public school students the option to learn basic grammar in said curriculum?

Don't dodge the question now, anon.

>>6699998
No, because I don't think public schooling should exist.

There is no 'free school'. Public school students are still paying for it in the form of taxes.

And people can learn things outside of school too.

>>6699971

>You're truly a master in the art of insult. Shakespeare's comic characters would be proud of you.

lol at how completely rustled you are. you tried you arrogantly correct an anon and you fucked up your little arrogant correction. cope with the events of this thread already and get over it spergking.

>>6700016

>No, because I don't think public schooling should exist.

So you've stated that you'd want a revision of the public schooling curriculum as well as declaring that the schools shouldn't exist at all.

These errant pontifications of yours aren't even consistent you goofy dunce.

>>6699879
>Gosh, you write very badly. Are you a newspaper columnist?
It wasn't even bad, favela monkey.

at least we can finally acknowledge the dream of bildung is dead

wish they'd hurry up and implement the orgyporgy though

The more greentext a thread has the more butthurt are its inhabitants. Soon the name-calling will start.

>>6699895
You're not ready to correct others. In this case "inner-city" is being used as a compound adjective describing the classroom, so it absolutely takes a hyphen. "I live in the inner city." "The inner-city bus smells foul."

>>6699979
I studied Chaucer during my GCSEs in 2005 or something (I bloody hated it and all...)

To be honest, they should just transfer the dumb ethnic kids to trade school at the earliest date possible and let the smart kids enjoy their Shakespeare.

>>6699766
We've decided as a society that everyone needs to go to college, little obstacles like "not being smart enough" and "fundamentally rejecting the value of learning" be damned. Enjoy the ride.

The point of mandatory English lessons is to teach kids how to read and write, not to indoctrinate them with flavour-of-the-month politics. Analysing a Shakespeare play is the most efficient way of teaching children how to read, appreciate and potentially write beautiful English. If John Green or JK Rowling or whatever are your yardsticks, you are condemning your pupils to a life of mediocrity - at best!

>>6700016
Such a disgusting outlook.

Do you really not care about the poor at all? If you were poor, would you enjoy being able to go to school.

>>6700164
Poor people by and large don't want to go to school. It should be optional for them.

>>6700153
Shakespeare is purple. Beauty is found in economy.

>>6699696
>tfw women generally prefer literature written by men over literature written by women if we take into account the NYT Bestseller lists over the past 5 years and break them down by copies sold to individual genders

>>6700166
>sweeping generalizations
Some of your favorite authors lived in poverty. I grew up dirt poor and I bet I'm more knowledgeable and more ambitious than you, simply based on your quick tendency to make such a sweeping ignorant generalization.

>>6699979
> I'm fairly sure there are little to no schools that have Chaucer in the curriculum in the UK
I did Chaucer in school briefly.

>>6699705
>never read Shakespeare
>on /lit

Pls no

>>6700181
Have you ever read Shakespeare?

>>6699801
>being this contrarian
>arguing about Shakespeare despite never reading him
>never reading him

Vomit.

>>6700290
This faggot really should stop weighing in on any issue outside his field he keeps fucking reminding me of my 13 year old nephew

>>6700308
He's right about Shakespeare though

>>6700271
I've enjoyed the literature I've read. I don't care much for Shakespeare. What's the problem? I don't belong to the image you have of what a literary person should be like? Read what you want to read, not what you think you should be reading.

>>6700319
>I don't belong to the image you have of what a literary person should be like?
>just because I don't like Shakespeare?
>just because my favorite book is the Kite Runner?
>wow anon im not literary enough? I don't conform to your anglocentric views?
>read what you want, I see through u

Kek

>>6700308
>>6700311
>Only comment on other fields when you agree with me

Okay, SJW.

>>6699705
Get off our board.

>>6700334
What? A large portion of academia would agree that Shakespeare is the greatest writer of verse that the English language has to offer. What's SJW about that, you cock gobbling faggot? I'm not the same poster as the other one you quoted, retard.

>>6699696
>teach my students about the human condition.
since when has this been the purpose of any education let alone english?

>>6700329
What? This doesn't make any sense.
>>6700345
>thinking you have any part in ownership of a Khmer picture board

>>6700368
This isn't me. Just someone trolling. Please ignore them.

Why would you think that the works of one of the most important authors of English literature shouldn't be taught?

Compulsory education should just end. Don't force people to go to school if they don't want to, then there can at least be some educational standards. If some of the children are too ethnically diverse to understand it, oh well.

>>6700385
>not getting greentext
>parroting memes
>not liking Shakespeare
>liking the Kite Runner

>>>>>>>>>>>reddit

>One of those teachers is Dana Dusbiber, a veteran teacher at Luther Burbank High School. Luther Burbank is the largest inner-city school in Sacramento, California, with all students coming from low-income homes and a majority of them minorities.

Literally plebs kek.

On the plus side she's getting flamed in the comment section of the article.

>>6700426
>a majority of them minorities.

Can someone explain why it isn't racist for the media to imply that minorities can't read Shakespeare? I swear leftists don't know their own stance

>>6700438

It's reassuring to read hundreds of commenters giving fairly articulate and well-reasoned smashes to a position like this.

Beats the average YouTube fare, that's for sure.

>>6700469
She was saying that it would bore them because #oldwhiteman

>>6700469

Because it's for white bois, they must read 2pac lyrics and learn how to do meth or your a shitelorde, you pig

>>6699801
#rekt

>>6699830
>you write very badly

>>6699808
>The House on Mango Street

trigger warning that shit, anon. I had to read that garbage in my sophomore honors class. It's the only book I've ever thrown against a wall.

>>6700588
Why?

>>6700610
lol

>>6699801
What, I'm eastern European and we read Shakespeare. Every civilized country teaches Shakespeare.

>>6699814
Studies show that reading increases empathy, and I can say that I have grown immensely due to the literature I have read and the film I have watched.

>>6699903
People forget that studying an art form is not necessarily the same as studying its history and development in a scholarly sense. You don't have to be a literary scholar to be a literary master.

>>6699696
Good, his work is not only boring as fuck but basic and outdated.

I only had to read one piece of Shakespearse in GCSE (MacBeth), funnily enough all we had read before that was American literature (To kill a mockingbird and The Cay). I get why, his work has a lasting impression on the English language, you really have to go back to see how it has had such a great influence on Anglo literature. We actually focused more on Irish poetry

>>6699696
>my own personal disinterest in reading stories written in an early form of the English language that I cannot always easily navigate, but also because there is a WORLD of really exciting literature out there that better speaks to the needs of my very ethnically-diverse and wonderfully curious modern-day students.
>cannot easily navigate
>the needs of my ethnically-diverse

Take your kids out of state schools and put them into catholic schools so they don't end up a moron like this woman

>>6700588
The forced in "ethnic" literature made me dread every English class I had. They're always the same too. I don't know how many short stories I've read about poor black people in the south and their terrible lives. And the questions at the end were always stupid "interpret this" type questions about the dullest shit.

>What was unique about Sophie's summer dress? How do you think this ties into Sophie's fear of her father?
>Sophie and her family had to eat rye bread and honey every day. Considering this, was it wrong for Will to steal the cheese from the deli for his sister? Would you do the same?
>>6701864
Not to mention problematic.

As a person who as is actually getting their degree in Secondary Education with a specialization in Language Arts, let me enlighten /lit/ on something...

Most teachers that teach English and History in Secondary Education do not actually have degrees in these fields. They may hold a E-6 Education degree and be certified to teach higher level courses beyond E-6 (basically primary education). But having a cert in something doesn't mean you're truly qualified to teach it.

If we want our kids to get a better education in the Arts, then reform is going to be needed. They need to encourage and subsidize more men to get into teaching, and allow less Primary Education majors to teach in Secondary. They also need to remove the requirement (In some states at least) that to be a coach for an athletic, you need to be a teacher as well. COACHES DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ACADEMICS.

Also, while Common Core is shit for math and science, it is God-Tier for Language Arts. It encourages deep readings and class discussion. In Common Core LA, there is no room for a worksheet. You're either reading, discussing, or doing a project to demonstrate your knowledge.

>>6701945
>problematic
You probably use that word more than any actual SJW, so you're just as cancerous as they are in my eyes.

>>6699749
>west side story
>cinema

>>6701961
I normally don't do the whole "oppressive shitlord pissbaby XD" thing, but read the post again. You can tell he was eager to say it.

>>6701961
I think he's being ironic, put the pitchfork down

>>6699791
>The only thing that matters is LITERARY MERIT in itself, because LITERATURE IS AN END IN ITSELF, NOT A MEANS TO AN END.
Great literature never was produced thinking "let's write for the sake of art". It's easy to see with only considering the greatest pieces of literature, not just Shakespeare, that represent a whole historical period and furthermore exhibits the worries and troubles in the society.
A point often made by philosophers and sociologists is that literature, across history, seems to be the greatest tool to prompt social change (for good or bad), since it's the most accessible medium for the society (most people don't read political philosophy, ethics, sociology or whatever writings worry about the state of things).
I do understand that some people may believe that writers, or artists in general, must do "art for the sake of art" (though is evident that's something I cannot share), but such courses must be oriented to an audience whose interest is mainly art and thus can be benefited from such teachings. In the high school case, there cannot be "literature for the sake of literature" as there cannot be "math for the sake of math"; most knowledge taught in high school aims to be broad enough that anyone can benefit from it, in particular, literature must be a tool at this stage.

>>6699696
>I dislike Shakespeare because it's not invisible prose. And if its not invisible, it's purple prose which means it's bad writing. I don't want to encourage bad writing in the next generation.

>>6702058
>all that strawman
>all that utilitarism

>>6699696
This shit needs to die. --- At the same time, this is but natural selection. Let them remain retards, if they long for it so much.

>>6702126
>straw man
Show where.

>utilitarism
I have only pointed out the necessity of subject to not die within themselves on a stage where people may very well not be interested in literature by itself. There is no utilitarism in that, since "art for art" can and should be taught, but it's a college matter rather than for high school.

>>6699813
Holy fuck you know all you did is ask why literature is benefitial when the guy said it doesnt need to be because its and end to itself you fucking cuck genuinely angyr because this genuine and not blatant bait like the first post

>>6702243
>being so mad syntax disintegrates

>>6699705

Shakespeare is literally a goldmine for angsty teens who like to read.

Themes that Shakespeare deals with:

>Teen romance
>Teen angst
>Suicide
>Cannibalism
>Poisonings
>Insanity
>Supernatural, ghosts, witchcraft, etc.

Every emo or edgy kid I knew in high school loved Shakespeare.

>>6699903
Oh god, how does this board go so far down hill. First of all, literature does have its benefits, that is being able to read shit better. Also it helps us tap into culture and history and so on. But we must balance this usefulness carefully with the pure value of literature (sometimes caring too much about what you will use in "the real world"), just like taking a music or an art class, literature gives kids a deeper understanding of an art form. Yet it tends to be mandatory because of the pairing of literature with writing, as well as its benefits that i have stated (most importantly the ability to read well). You dont have to go full out like you are saying, thats stupid. But someone as important as shakespeare? Reading two simple plays in 4 years isnt too bad.
Also
>im a libertarian
Mfw they were right about pol invading this place, only a year ago Marx threads were respected for the most part. Now you make one and its all shitposts, nobody even tries anymore. Then you got all these fucking libertarian fucks running around like they actually read or something.
I dont know. I dont post here often and i know its normal to reminisce on the old times but this really does feel concrete, unlike other boards which i have just gotten bored with.

>>6700016
Holy shit the tax meme
you know how taxes work? Its distributed throughout the whole population, usually based on how much money you make, so the rich are paying for the majority of the costs, while you are not paying the large sum of money it actually costs to put you through education.

>>6699696
It's a slippery slope

think about what it takes to be a high school english teacher

oh yeah, fucking nothing

I think compulsory post-primary education is almost completely worthless. There should be universal primary education to make sure everyone is literate and can do arithmetic, maybe some basic history. Other than that what's the point? Most people don't get anything deep out of it, forget it, don't appreciate it and don't like it. Anyone who is smart and has an interest is stuff will be able to learn it on their own anyway.

>>6699801
Stay mad, freedom-deficient one

If you don't teach poetry adequately, there's really no reason to teach Shakespeare.

And where are you going to find a decent amount of class time given to poetry and its structure? That's right, nowhere in the states.

So who gives a fuck.

If you can't grasp Shakespeare's writing, all you're going to get is platitudes and generalizations which you can easily find in other literature.

>>6699705
The point of reading Shakespeare in high school is that he was one of the most influential authors in the English language. The archetypal characters and narratives he describes are either reproduced or consciously subverted by virtually every fictional author that came after him.

You should read Shakes for the same reason you should read the Bible; even if you don't like the writing itself, it enriches your understanding of other things you will read later.

>>6699696
she's right
shakespeare is a hack
he didn't even right his books

>>6703662
did you get someone to "right" that post for you?

>>6699705

I legit hate you.

>>6699705

>I've heard it's complicated and riddled with allusions the kids will never ever understand.

Can't tell if troll or actual potato

>>6699814
Reading, writing and hearing stories are some of the games that help a child grow. Muh Africa suffering is overdoing it, you should explore it as a late teenager/early adult. For kids reading is actualy not that bad a way to grow intellectually. Now of cours that's provided you let the reading work on you.

>Shakespeare changed the English language forever
>you use words and phrases he coined without even knowing it
>before him, no author had written so much about the human condition
>before him, no author had written characters with psychological depth
>he is undeniably a genius
>one of his greatest tragedies was about a heroic Moore and expressly focused on the hardships of being a black man in a white dominated society
>her only argument is "we need literature that better speaks to ethnically-diverse students."

She's entitled to her opinion, but she's doing her students a disservice.

>>6699886
If Shakespeare had been a woman she wouldn't have become the only writer massively taught in schools over the past hundred years.

>>6703802
you say that like Jane Austen and all her retarded sisters and cousins aren't widely taught in classrooms.

>>6699935
>Also, very few of Shakespeare's plays are actually set in England

It doesn't make any difference, however, Shalespeare didn't visit many (if any) of the places his plays are set in, and in most cases he uses them for the sake fo reference (f.i a play that's drawn from Roman history will have to take place in Rome, even though everything else about the play is British).

She's retarded, but no for saying that Shakespeare is mostly Britbong.

>>6700290
>a poet better than Shakespeare
>a scientist beter than Einstein

The pop culture is strong in this one.

>>6700329
He might be a moron but he's not wrong here. Shakespeare having been declared the "best poet eva" by Anglo critics doesn't mean everyone should read him. Everyone into literature should perhaps give him a try, not much besides that.

You can acknowledge that a writer is a good writer without necessarily getting much from him. The habit of reducing literature to "have you read X or Y item in my Official List of Important Writers ?" is pretty disgusting, and if anything the people supporting it are plebs who can't form taste by themselves.

>Inb4 go back to YA

I had read Shakespeare, Dante, Kant and Chekov before reaching 14, that's not the point. You should read literature out of joy and curiosity, reading because you "have to" is for people who choose reading as part of their job.

>>6703810
Widely taught, but not massively taught to the extent Shakespeare is. HS curriculum until recently was Shakespeare general + asides. For some reson the American education system decided at some point that he was the only author really worth studying. Then they changed their mind and decided he should be balanced with monority readings. Meanwhile, hundreds of underappreciated or underhyped writers, dead or alive, white or non-white, keep getting underappreciated.

Anyone else notice how the objective horrible decline in the quality of public education seems to correlate with trend of teachers saying "my students don't like this stuff and it doesn't speak to them, so let's stop teaching it"

>So I ask, why not teach the oral tradition out of Africa, which includes an equally relevant commentary on human behavior? Why not teach translations of early writings or oral storytelling from Latin America or Southeast Asia

Funny thing that she uses the term Latin America, which is forced cultural appropriation due to colonialism.

>>6703788
>before him, no author had written characters with psychological depth
Lol, have you actually read any pre Shakespeare canonical works

>>6704661
He's referring to Bloom's claim that Shakespeare invented what we consider to be human. Though you are right and Bloom's an idiot

>>6702402
It's not just about teaching people though. It's so kids are actually doing something and basically used as free child care so parents can work.

I don't care. I feel sorry for any of her more curious students who will now be deprived of an early exposure to Shakespeare, but they will probably discover him on their own time later anyway. This woman's job is just to teach children how to read and write. Also, I wouldn't care if no one else in the world read Shakespeare as long as they didn't prevent me from reading him.

I get her point. It's a bit dumb to teach children nothing but regal shit from dead white guys because there are things written that are more relevant and exciting. You can't get kids to engage if you're not meeting them halfway.

She is an ENGLISH teacher though and Shakespeare is an important element English literature. Perhaps he should be reserved for more advanced classes though. I can't imagine a bunch of dumb street rats getting much out of being taught Hamlet. You may as well teach them something that will stick and let the ones talented or interested learn about the history of the literature they are studying.

>>6704019

Since education has gotten better and more inclusive and people are better educated and more intelligent than they have been in the past, shouldn't we conclude that giving teacher's autonomy and allowing them to teach their class as it suits that class is actually improving things?

>>6699968

Shakespeare is considered early modern English.

Y'all mad as motherfuckers because a teacher doesn't want to teach your favourite playwright even though there sre hundreds of authors just as worthy of being "taught" (the fuck do you think people learn from bring forced to read Shakespeare, anyway).
>muh linguistic influence
So fucking what, you think they're gonna be amazed or interested just because thry wrote different before him? Never mind that a teacher is going to be more enthusiastic and inspiring if they're talking about an author they enjoy personally. Shit, Shakespeare is not the beginning or end of English lit. Absolutely no reason to absolutely teach him instead of others.

>>6699749
The same thing is true of Milton, but he isn't taught in high school either.

>This is not a defense of not teaching Milton

>>6699791
Literature is a means to am end. Art for arts' sake is obscene.

>>6704836
High school is to give you a rounded foundation of understanding. Shakespeare is part of the foundation of the English language. You're simply underplaying his impact on the evolution of the English language and storytelling. And guess what, it's an ENGLISH class. If you want to learn about African literature, go take an African literature class. And you act as if saying Shakespeare should be taught as part of a high school English class means that ONLY Shakespeare should be taught. No he shouldn't be the ONLY writer taught but he definitely should be a part of the curriculum.

>>6699879
>mfw his writing is actually better than yours

>>6699705
>I'm not British, so I've never had to read anything by him

what the fuck

In what country is Shakespeare not taught?

>>6704795
Being taught Twelfth Night in primary school was fun as shit though. The only people who don't 'get' Shakespeare are those too pretentious to humble themselves and engage with the text.

>>6704836
Teaching Shakespeare instead of Marlowe is indeed arbitrary to an extent. But teaching fucking John Agard or Sherman Alexie instead of Shakespeare is nothing more than anti-intellectual tokenism.

>>6705588

Sherman Alexie represents a valid window into a segment of human experience. Saying "tokenism" is trivializing that. Besides which, The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven could easily be taught in the same class as The Tempest. They aren't mutually exclusive.

>>6704795
Please, the best part about Shakes is that his stories are cool as shit while having symbolisms and all that.
I loved Hamlet as much as I loved the Lion King and I fucking loved the Lion King.

At this point, I think it would be morally irresponsible NOT to homeschool my children.

>>6699696
>needs of my very ethnically-diverse
haha, funny

>>6699895
such a cute post

>>6703871
What should you teach in an English class if not one of the writers most responsible for modern literary tradition?

The argument of "They don't understand the writing, why teach them it?" can be applied to almost every influential writer.

If you're just going to use an english class to teach YA tripe and garbage post-colonial racial identity lit, why even bother having an English class?

>>6703788
Game-changer haha that sounds funny

>Divergent is better than King Lear because le old dead white guy XDDDDD

>>6707819
>What should you teach in an English class if not one of the writers most responsible for modern literary tradition?

I'm not against teaching him, and if you don't know what you're doing you could do worse than pick him up as a default choice. But it's a bit illusory to think teaching Shakespeare will magically enhance the quality of the class. He's an interesting writer, but not every child is bound to get something from him. Teahcer in OP is dumb because her argument is "dead white male" when it should simply be "will I be able to teach him in a way that my student education benefit from it ?".

>If you're just going to use an english class to teach YA tripe and garbage post-colonial racial identity lit, why even bother having an English class?

If anything I'm favorable of teaching more old writers, but not only the usual overhypes, and dependantly of the audience. Some kids will be more receptive to Blake than to Shakespeare for instance. Not every class needs to be taught the same writers, and not every child need to study the exact same writer as other kids in his class.

I don't think there's a definitive solution, no matter what you do, a good deal of the kids will be unsatisfied. So it's up to the teacher to make a choice, grounded on personal readings but also on history and influence. What teacher should avoid is bigotry one way or another. Dissing Shakespeare for not being a strong black womyn is as stupid as forcing Shakespeare in everyone's throat because muh Canon.

I suppose my point boils down to: what do you want to teach to the kids ("you" is not only the teacher, but also the parents and the school system) ? How can you teach it ? Perhaps what you sought to achieve with Shakespeare will, in some cases, be achieved better with Marlowe or Carroll or even fairy tales. Teacher should think about it, and to that extent the teacher in the OP is not wrong, where she goes wrong is in assuming you can't get valuable readings from a dead guy who doesn't belong to the same ethnic group. However the teachers are not the only one involved, if, as a parent, you care about your kid reading Shakespeare, why rely on the education system for that ? Shakespeare is public domain, he's all over the place, and it's not like you spend much more time with your kid than any teacher will, right ?

>>6699830
>Most people who go to school don't learn anything anyway.
Coming from a product of public education.

You wouldn't even be literate without it.
>>6699903
Lolbertarians are a joke.

To me, the express purpose of grade school English is to reach kids to read. To give them reading skills that lets them tackle literature after graduation, if they so choose. As for getting kids "engaged" by reading material they can relate to, fuck that shit. School is for learning, it is not for entertainment. If they refuse to do their work because they're not having enough fun, fucking fail them.

>my own personal disinterest in reading stories written in an early form of the English language that I cannot always easily navigate,
>that I cannot always easily navigate
>this woman is a qualified highschool English teacher

>>6699705
You should read him even simply to understand our culture and get a sense of how much the English language and idiom has been changed by his works.

Besides there aren't that many allusions in something like Romeo and Juliet.

liberalism is a mental disorder

>>6703802
Go to bed Virginia Woolf

The thing that scares me the most about this is that a school hired an idiot to help teach a generation of people

this entire board is completely overrun by /pol/ shit. whoever placed the sticky was either too optimistic or too lazy to actually enforce their rules.

thankfully posting here anonymously means it's easy to leave without remorse or any feeling of connection to the people you're leaving. I'm fucking off out of this place and I suggest anyone else who actually reads and likes discussing books to the same - /lit/ isn't for us anymore.

>>6710551
Thanks for the update. Where can i subscribe to your blog?

>>6710551
>reads and likes discussing books
>/lit/
try to be less obvious next time

>>6710551

Can I follow your tumblr?

>>6699733
I read othello. Hamlet was covered, but more in passing than and in depth study. Chauncer wasn't even mentioned. I'm a student in the USA, graduated couple years ago. Now in college

>>6710551
fucking feminist cuck.

People are finally being redpilled, deal with it.

tumblr cuck

yeah the dead british guy argument is sort of dumb but like honestly you can start with the romantics and still have a pretty good understanding of contemporary culture, and like i think it's dumb to cut authors for what they aren't, but honestly it'd probably be cool if black kids could read books by people who were the same color as them

i don't think shakespeare should be cut, but on a formal level to the reader of the 21st century nothing particularly interesting is going on, and honestly recognizing that a work borrows another's plot isn't important unless you're going to be engaging in a thorough historical reading so i don't really buy that argument

also yeah my favorite part of /lit/ now is how people who clearly came from /pol/ within the last year tell me to go back to tumblr, re: /pol/ invasion

>>6710678
go back 2 tumblr, princess

>>6699705
The West is doomed...

>>6705354
I understand that in some vapid sense being a utilitarian is viable. It is an easy (theoretically) way to determine how to interact in society.

But you are on an anonymous imageboard where literally nothing you say has any utilitarian worth, besides your own masturbation. Presumably, here, incredibly abstract, entirely useless, but ultimately are (the best contenders for) the "truth".

My autism might be too intense but I cannot actually believe that someone would wholeheartedly in their own abstract metaphysical views, believe in something as vapid as utilitarianism.

>>6700016
Fuck off back to reddit with your meme ideology