4 ms·

I have a background in education, and I agree with you so hard. Another related mistake educators make: assigning material that could be relevant or interestin

by eszed 1y ago

I have a background in education, and I agree with you so hard. Another related mistake educators make: assigning material that could be relevant or interesting to high school students, but then not giving them the sorts of experiences that will make it so. I was a nerd (and, in fact, skipped high school English), so when my classmates were reading Chaucer and were (predictably) bored to tears by The Knight's Tale (it's all about Virtue, right?), I led an impromptu study hall session on The Miller's Tale (it's a long series of scatalogical jokes), and what do you know?, they a) enjoyed it, and b) were more willing and able to give The Knight's Tale a go. Don't even get me started on reading Shakespeare without, you know, experiencing it as a play first (or, indeed, ever).

adriand 1y ago
It’s disheartening to see this happen in real time. I raised my kids to be readers but the habit ultimately didn’t stick. My son got assigned Frankenstein in his Grade 12 English class and I hoped for the best but he was bored to tears by it. I read a page or two and I could understand why - the language is outdated and there’s little for him to relate to. Meanwhile there are plenty of modern novels by great writers to choose from where I think the reading would be easier and the stories would be immersive. Tom Wolfe and Jonathan Franzen come to mind, or Margaret Atwood, or Ursula K LeGuin. I’m reading We Do Not Part by Han Kang right now, which won the Nobel - it’s a great example of an ideas-driven book with accessible language.
- eszed 1y ago
  I agree. Frankenstein is a great novel, and I've taught it at the college level, but I wouldn't include it in a high school curriculum. It feels to me like those "great books" lists got frozen in 1880-something, when general literacy (among literate people!) was much higher than it is today. Imposing texts like that onto much less experienced readers (much as we might deplore their relative lack of sophistication) seems almost punitive, and turns them away from reading entirely. (I'm not familiar with We Do Not Part; thanks for the recommendation. I love all of the other authors you mention, and will check Han Kang out.)
jfengel 1y ago
I am a Shakespeare actor and director, and I find it insane that they give students plays to read. Reading a play is a skill unto itself. Even more so for an Elizabethan play. The actors are doing so much interpretation work for you. It is an enormous effort. Let them. There is much value in reading Shakespeare, but you have to learn how, and you won't get there just by having an unabridged text thrown at you.
- ahazred8ta 1y ago
  For early high school, would you consider Moonlighting's condensed adaptation of Shrew to be a viable first exposure? https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/MoonlightingS3E07 https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/MoonlightingS3E...
  - defrost 1y ago
    jfengel might disagree, but if you absolutely must watch a Shrew variation made for TV at least give the BBC's Shakespeare ReTold version a gander: https://booktalkandmore.blogspot.com/2011/03/shakespeare-retold-taming-of-shrew.html https://booktalkandmore.blogspot.com/2011/03/shakespeare-ret... Everything comes together brilliantly in this adaptation, which remains remarkably - and surprisingly, perhaps - true to the source material, ...
  - eszed 1y ago
    I haven't seen this, but going by the linked summary, I'd say 'no'. I'm sure it's very clever, but pastiches depend upon familiarity with the source material to work. They also - this is why they're fun! - change the source in material ways, as it seems this does. Students need to experience plays the way they're meant to be experienced: as plays. Live events, with human interaction at their heart. Anything else is... Missing the point.
- eszed 1y ago
  Same. I've done I can't even count how many shows, and I don't particularly like reading plays. It's effort - usually worth it, but never not work. By the way, I spent the first two or three years of my professional career performing school-tour Shakespeare. That was a joy. Hard graft: sometimes three shows in a day, along with loading and unloading the van in between, but my goodness it was rewarding. Great training, too. We'd do a show in the morning for twenty people in a library, and then in the afternoon in a 2,000 seat auditorium. You had to learn quickly how to modulate your performance, and what choices land with what kinds of audience.

by eszed 1y ago

adriand 1y ago

It’s disheartening to see this happen in real time. I raised my kids to be readers but the habit ultimately didn’t stick. My son got assigned Frankenstein in his Grade 12 English class and I hoped for the best but he was bored to tears by it. I read a page or two and I could understand why - the language is outdated and there’s little for him to relate to. Meanwhile there are plenty of modern novels by great writers to choose from where I think the reading would be easier and the stories would be immersive. Tom Wolfe and Jonathan Franzen come to mind, or Margaret Atwood, or Ursula K LeGuin. I’m reading We Do Not Part by Han Kang right now, which won the Nobel - it’s a great example of an ideas-driven book with accessible language.

eszed 1y ago
I agree. Frankenstein is a great novel, and I've taught it at the college level, but I wouldn't include it in a high school curriculum. It feels to me like those "great books" lists got frozen in 1880-something, when general literacy (among literate people!) was much higher than it is today. Imposing texts like that onto much less experienced readers (much as we might deplore their relative lack of sophistication) seems almost punitive, and turns them away from reading entirely. (I'm not familiar with We Do Not Part; thanks for the recommendation. I love all of the other authors you mention, and will check Han Kang out.)

jfengel 1y ago

I am a Shakespeare actor and director, and I find it insane that they give students plays to read. Reading a play is a skill unto itself. Even more so for an Elizabethan play. The actors are doing so much interpretation work for you. It is an enormous effort. Let them. There is much value in reading Shakespeare, but you have to learn how, and you won't get there just by having an unabridged text thrown at you.

ahazred8ta 1y ago
For early high school, would you consider Moonlighting's condensed adaptation of Shrew to be a viable first exposure? https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/MoonlightingS3E07 https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/MoonlightingS3E...
- defrost 1y ago
  jfengel might disagree, but if you absolutely must watch a Shrew variation made for TV at least give the BBC's Shakespeare ReTold version a gander: https://booktalkandmore.blogspot.com/2011/03/shakespeare-retold-taming-of-shrew.html https://booktalkandmore.blogspot.com/2011/03/shakespeare-ret... Everything comes together brilliantly in this adaptation, which remains remarkably - and surprisingly, perhaps - true to the source material, ...
- eszed 1y ago
  I haven't seen this, but going by the linked summary, I'd say 'no'. I'm sure it's very clever, but pastiches depend upon familiarity with the source material to work. They also - this is why they're fun! - change the source in material ways, as it seems this does. Students need to experience plays the way they're meant to be experienced: as plays. Live events, with human interaction at their heart. Anything else is... Missing the point.
eszed 1y ago
Same. I've done I can't even count how many shows, and I don't particularly like reading plays. It's effort - usually worth it, but never not work. By the way, I spent the first two or three years of my professional career performing school-tour Shakespeare. That was a joy. Hard graft: sometimes three shows in a day, along with loading and unloading the van in between, but my goodness it was rewarding. Great training, too. We'd do a show in the morning for twenty people in a library, and then in the afternoon in a 2,000 seat auditorium. You had to learn quickly how to modulate your performance, and what choices land with what kinds of audience.