Removing Shakespeare from high school curriculum would be a travesty. That would be like removing Mozart from a music course because some kids don't get it.
Good god, is that where the conversation has gone?? Yeah, Shakespeare is tough for kids. That why it needs to stay in the curriculum. If it's tough, then the kids need to work really hard to understand it, and with ALL the resources available to help people comprehend it, that isn't too much to ask. Sounds ideal actually. Maybe there should be MORE Shakespeare, not less.
I've noticed many of these forum topics veer off track frequently. Going from Harper Lee to Shakespeare is a bit like going from Pearl Jam to Mozart. Both are great but how did we get there?
TKAMB is one of the greatest works of the 20th century, period!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Removing Shakespeare from high school curriculum would be a travesty. That would be like removing Mozart from a music course because some kids don't get it.
Good god, is that where the conversation has gone?? Yeah, Shakespeare is tough for kids. That why it needs to stay in the curriculum. If it's tough, then the kids need to work really hard to understand it, and with ALL the resources available to help people comprehend it, that isn't too much to ask. Sounds ideal actually. Maybe there should be MORE Shakespeare, not less.
TKAM is a classic. A different kind of classic than Shakespeare, but still quite worthy of reading.
Yes, PJ Soul, more Shakespeare. I was lucky to have great English teachers who told us Shakespeare was meant to be spoken, not read. If any of you haven't read The Tempest, take a look. So beautiful. But I had to be a grown-up to really appreciate it.
"Be not afeard; the isle is full of noises, Sounds, and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not..."
I was a top student in English. Shakespeare I just didn't get. what the hell he was trying to say. I honestly think his works probably belong in a higher learning atmosphere, like University. Most kids my age didn't get it either.
TKAM is essential reading.
Sounds like you must have had shitty teachers or something? Or just didn't excel in poetry perhaps? Shakespeare definitely isn't incomprehensible to a lot of high school students - I know I got it, and loved it. I had some English teachers that were great though (I also got my degree in English Lit, so it was obviously particularly up my alley; I had a really focused interest in English Lit in high school). Perhaps it should only be offered in honours classes though.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
shitty teacher? um, no. not in the least. and again, i was in honours english. poetry isn't for everyone. especially shakespeare poetry. the language can be difficult to understand, never mind interpret. just because it's easy for you, doesn't mean it is for everyone.
I excelled in math. just because others didn't, doesn't mean I assume they have shitty teachers or that they suck in math.
Shakespeare wrote for the stage. His works are best seen performed. If not that, listen to recorded performances. If not that, assign parts and read aloud in class. Which was what my ninth grade English teacher did with The Merchant of Venice. I can remember our class enjoying it hugely, especially since our teacher took the role of Shylock. It was an honors class but he used the same approach with his other classes.
There's depth to Shakespeare that's definitely better appreciated by more mature students but I don't think he's beyond high schoolers. Again, it's the approach. Hearing the language, with tone and inflection, makes it much easier to comprehend.
My daughter went to a small, very non-groovy (really) private school in LA. When her class did Romeo and Juliet in 7th grade, the father of one of the students came in with a friend and they did the sword-fighting scene b't Romeo and Tybalt. Gary Oldman was the father and my daughter still doesn't know who played the friend. Needless to say, she came home and announced that she loved Romeo and Juliet. The next year they read Macbeth and GO came in again and did several Macbeth monologues. That was a pretty cool way to introduce kids to Shakespeare.
A book I remember that blew me away in high school was The Autobiography of Malcolm X. It stuck with me for a long, long time.
shitty teacher? um, no. not in the least. and again, i was in honours english. poetry isn't for everyone. especially shakespeare poetry. the language can be difficult to understand, never mind interpret. just because it's easy for you, doesn't mean it is for everyone.
I excelled in math. just because others didn't, doesn't mean I assume they have shitty teachers or that they suck in math.
I did not suggest that it should be easy for everyone, and in fact suggested that perhaps poetry was more difficult for you. I was just asking a question, so not sure why you seemed to have reacted to e defensively. Some teachers are actually shitty. And for the record, I absolutely fucking suck at math. I barely passed grade 11 math (in fact I didn't - my teacher just was nice and knew I tried hard). That doesn't mean I think the material was inappropriate.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
Shakespeare wrote for the stage. His works are best seen performed. If not that, listen to recorded performances. If not that, assign parts and read aloud in class. Which was what my ninth grade English teacher did with The Merchant of Venice. I can remember our class enjoying it hugely, especially since our teacher took the role of Shylock. It was an honors class but he used the same approach with his other classes.
There's depth to Shakespeare that's definitely better appreciated by more mature students but I don't think he's beyond high schoolers. Again, it's the approach. Hearing the language, with tone and inflection, makes it much easier to comprehend.
Good point. I find plays in general a bit more of a challenge to read. I've read a bunch of them but it always takes kind of getting in a play-reading mind set. Even more of a challenge for me for some reason are movie scripts. Which shoots my chances at an acting career.
Speaking of plays, has anyone ever seen a good stage performance of TKAMB? I haven't but would.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Junior high students should have the Jungle by Upton Sinclair on their reading lists. The history of this country is important, and people need to know what sort of deplorable conditions life presented to the common man before socialistic controls were employed to save capitalism.
Shakespeare should be in an advanced high school English class and university elective classes.
Reference and a small portion of study should be made to him in Social Studies.
I'm not discrediting his work... I'm saying that outside of English Honours students... his work is challenging at best for kids to appreciate. I'm also not saying we serve them comic books either. I'm saying there are several great pieces of literature that have much more relevance to kids.
Some familiarization, definitely. Same with performance. Generally not my thing but before it became chick, I saw a troupe do a W.S.play with the original language but punk costumes and black cloth angular sets at the Ashland, Oregon Shakespeare Festival. It was really different at the time and outstanding.
As much as I'm very much a fan of all the classics offered in most schools, if I went back to teaching I would do what my 9th grade teacher did. She said, "OK, here's the reading list this year but I would encourage any of you to try something outside the norm." I had read most of them (Red Pony, The Pearl, TKAM, Old Man and the Sea, etc,) so she suggest that I might like Truman Capote. I read, Other Voices, Other Rooms. That book completely altered how I saw literature. It was literally like adding another voice, another room to the realm of literature. Reading Brautigan, Hesse, Saroyan and some others in high school did much the same. Today it would be more challenging because kids are more jaded. Catcher in the Rye was radical then, today maybe not so.
I would hope teachers today are including some contemporary literature by people like Sherman Alexie, Barbara Kingsolver, T. C. Boyle, Annie Proulx, Mark Haddon, Toni Morrison, Haruki Murakami, etc.
Others?
geez, Brian...I knew you had a few years on me, and having seen Hendrix and some of the musical greats of years past will always be something to envy....but seeing a Shakespeare performance before he got trendy? THAT is impressive.
I was a top student in English. Shakespeare I just didn't get. what the hell he was trying to say. I honestly think his works probably belong in a higher learning atmosphere, like University. Most kids my age didn't get it either.
TKAM is essential reading.
Funny, I was the exact opposite. I honestly don't even remember if I bothered reading TKAM or if it was part of the curriculum at any point (I'm sure it was and I blew it off)....I was bored stiff by Grapes of Wrath.....maybe I should go back and try reading some of these 'greats' again. Now that I have slightly less of a chip on my shoulder than I did as a teen... But Shakespeare? At first I was like 'how the fuck am I going to get through this? (Merchant of Venice was first) What does this even mean?' I swear it took me an hour to read five pages....but at some point something clicked and I was able to 'get it'...and I loved it.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
Shakespeare should be in an advanced high school English class and university elective classes.
Reference and a small portion of study should be made to him in Social Studies.
I'm not discrediting his work... I'm saying that outside of English Honours students... his work is challenging at best for kids to appreciate. I'm also not saying we serve them comic books either. I'm saying there are several great pieces of literature that have much more relevance to kids.
Some familiarization, definitely. Same with performance. Generally not my thing but before it became chick, I saw a troupe do a W.S.play with the original language but punk costumes and black cloth angular sets at the Ashland, Oregon Shakespeare Festival. It was really different at the time and outstanding.
As much as I'm very much a fan of all the classics offered in most schools, if I went back to teaching I would do what my 9th grade teacher did. She said, "OK, here's the reading list this year but I would encourage any of you to try something outside the norm." I had read most of them (Red Pony, The Pearl, TKAM, Old Man and the Sea, etc,) so she suggest that I might like Truman Capote. I read, Other Voices, Other Rooms. That book completely altered how I saw literature. It was literally like adding another voice, another room to the realm of literature. Reading Brautigan, Hesse, Saroyan and some others in high school did much the same. Today it would be more challenging because kids are more jaded. Catcher in the Rye was radical then, today maybe not so.
I would hope teachers today are including some contemporary literature by people like Sherman Alexie, Barbara Kingsolver, T. C. Boyle, Annie Proulx, Mark Haddon, Toni Morrison, Haruki Murakami, etc.
Others?
geez, Brian...I knew you had a few years on me, and having seen Hendrix and some of the musical greats of years past will always be something to envy....but seeing a Shakespeare performance before he got trendy? THAT is impressive.
I was a top student in English. Shakespeare I just didn't get. what the hell he was trying to say. I honestly think his works probably belong in a higher learning atmosphere, like University. Most kids my age didn't get it either.
TKAM is essential reading.
Funny, I was the exact opposite. I honestly don't even remember if I bothered reading TKAM or if it was part of the curriculum at any point (I'm sure it was and I blew it off)....I was bored stiff by Grapes of Wrath.....maybe I should go back and try reading some of these 'greats' again. Now that I have slightly less of a chip on my shoulder than I did as a teen... But Shakespeare? At first I was like 'how the fuck am I going to get through this? (Merchant of Venice was first) What does this even mean?' I swear it took me an hour to read five pages....but at some point something clicked and I was able to 'get it'...and I loved it.
To be or not to be, my friend. I just keep on bein'!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I read a ton. Always have. There were many books I loved in high school that had significant meaning: Lord of the Flies for example. Even The Chyrsalids.
Studying Shakespeare is more out of respect for his work at a time when that type of work was revolutionary. But I'm sorry... as groundbreaking and awesome as it was at the time... it's simply not that fantastic or relevant in my eyes to the average high schooler. Advanced classes, a tribute paid in Social Studies classes and a university elective course for sure. Might be just me. I dunno.
The Jungle is a great idea - my husband just read it recently and was blown away.
My daughter went to a Catholic all girl high school and first semester freshman year she had to read Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Rebecca, and something else that was just like those three and she ended up hating all of them. A little variety might have been better. Later they read Catcher in the Rye and she was very, very happy.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
The Jungle is a great idea - my husband just read it recently and was blown away.
My daughter went to a Catholic all girl high school and first semester freshman year she had to read Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Rebecca, and something else that was just like those three and she ended up hating all of them. A little variety might have been better. Later they read Catcher in the Rye and she was very, very happy.
Austin, Bronte, du Maurier... their lives were so much more interesting than their works. I've never understood the appeal. Because I'm a guy?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The Jungle is a great idea - my husband just read it recently and was blown away.
My daughter went to a Catholic all girl high school and first semester freshman year she had to read Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Rebecca, and something else that was just like those three and she ended up hating all of them. A little variety might have been better. Later they read Catcher in the Rye and she was very, very happy.
Austin, Bronte, du Maurier... their lives were so much more interesting than their works. I've never understood the appeal. Because I'm a guy?
Studying Shakespeare is more out of respect for his work at a time when that type of work was revolutionary. But I'm sorry... as groundbreaking and awesome as it was at the time... it's simply not that fantastic or relevant in my eyes to the average high schooler. Advanced classes, a tribute paid in Social Studies classes and a university elective course for sure. Might be just me. I dunno.
I wouldn't call old Will revolutionary, even for his time. He was a successful playwright. He was so successful that other people tried to pass off their works as his. As one of my professors liked to say, Shakespeare was in it for the money. He wasn't trying to frustrate future students of English literature.
But in addition to being successful, much of his writing is brilliant. Not all of it. He got better and better with time. Generally speaking, he first wrote his comedies, then histories, then tragedies. That's why his tragedies are many of his best works. The themes are still timely, especially as they relate to depictions of power and struggles for it.
I don't think Shakespeare is beyond high school kids. I think it hinges on the choice of plays and how it's taught. I can't emphasize enough how much difference it makes to see or hear the plays.
The Jungle is a great idea - my husband just read it recently and was blown away.
My daughter went to a Catholic all girl high school and first semester freshman year she had to read Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Rebecca, and something else that was just like those three and she ended up hating all of them. A little variety might have been better. Later they read Catcher in the Rye and she was very, very happy.
My prince and I were both English majors and I was telling him about this thread last night. Since we're both so old, we were wondering what works kids read in school now. I've read the 3 above and they all have their merits to me, especially Jane Eyre. But that's a little heavy on the chick lit for the first semester of high school.
I think people are wired differently. Some like math, some like science, some like literature, etc.... Something like Shakespeare is good exercise for the brain, but not something that is very important overall. That is me talking as I am a math person though!
I think people are wired differently. Some like math, some like science, some like literature, etc.... Something like Shakespeare is good exercise for the brain, but not something that is very important overall. That is me talking as I am a math person though!
I used to have a tee that said "English major--you do the math."
I read a ton. Always have. There were many books I loved in high school that had significant meaning: Lord of the Flies for example. Even The Chyrsalids.
Studying Shakespeare is more out of respect for his work at a time when that type of work was revolutionary. But I'm sorry... as groundbreaking and awesome as it was at the time... it's simply not that fantastic or relevant in my eyes to the average high schooler. Advanced classes, a tribute paid in Social Studies classes and a university elective course for sure. Might be just me. I dunno.
But Shakespeare teaches all kind of lessons as far as the study of English Lit goes. Having to decipher the language and figure out all the metaphors and how they reflect the political and social circumstances of the day, learning how Shakespeare's words have grown into common vernacular in present day, how words are put together to have double meanings, etc etc etc etc - it's all a training exercise for high school students. It's meant to teach them the nuances of how language is used. I don't actually feel like the stories themselves are the point at all. It's training for critical thinking and the uses of language IMO (as well as an artistic history lesson), and I think that's the main point of having it in high schools. Yes, it is challenging - very much so, for some. And having to go through it like a puzzle is the main point.
PS - you read the Chrysalids in high school? We read that in grade 5. Great book, but I'm surprised it would be on the high school reading list.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I read a ton. Always have. There were many books I loved in high school that had significant meaning: Lord of the Flies for example. Even The Chyrsalids.
Studying Shakespeare is more out of respect for his work at a time when that type of work was revolutionary. But I'm sorry... as groundbreaking and awesome as it was at the time... it's simply not that fantastic or relevant in my eyes to the average high schooler. Advanced classes, a tribute paid in Social Studies classes and a university elective course for sure. Might be just me. I dunno.
But Shakespeare teaches all kind of lessons as far as the study of English Lit goes. Having to decipher the language and figure out all the metaphors and how they reflect the political and social circumstances of the day, learning how Shakespeare's words have grown into common vernacular in present day, how words are put together to have double meanings, etc etc etc etc - it's all a training exercise for high school students. It's meant to teach them the nuances of how language is used. I don't actually feel like the stories themselves are the point at all. It's training for critical thinking and the uses of language IMO (as well as an artistic history lesson), and I think that's the main point of having it in high schools. Yes, it is challenging - very much so, for some. And having to go through it like a puzzle is the main point.
PS - you read the Chrysalids in high school? We read that in grade 5. Great book, but I'm surprised it would be on the high school reading list.
Grade 9 for Chrysalids (you probably went to one of those hoity toity private schools your professor mom and dad sent you to!).
Like I say... The Canterbury Tales... Tess of the D'Urbervilles... Uncle Tom... etc... all have their place in history; however, there have been books written under the modern context that offer the ability to teach the items you mentioned.
But we split hairs. All is good. I just hated Shakespeare. And Milton. And Chaucer. I respected all of them... but couldn't dig the work. I did like Timothy Findley (The Wars).
I read a ton. Always have. There were many books I loved in high school that had significant meaning: Lord of the Flies for example. Even The Chyrsalids.
Studying Shakespeare is more out of respect for his work at a time when that type of work was revolutionary. But I'm sorry... as groundbreaking and awesome as it was at the time... it's simply not that fantastic or relevant in my eyes to the average high schooler. Advanced classes, a tribute paid in Social Studies classes and a university elective course for sure. Might be just me. I dunno.
But Shakespeare teaches all kind of lessons as far as the study of English Lit goes. Having to decipher the language and figure out all the metaphors and how they reflect the political and social circumstances of the day, learning how Shakespeare's words have grown into common vernacular in present day, how words are put together to have double meanings, etc etc etc etc - it's all a training exercise for high school students. It's meant to teach them the nuances of how language is used. I don't actually feel like the stories themselves are the point at all. It's training for critical thinking and the uses of language IMO (as well as an artistic history lesson), and I think that's the main point of having it in high schools. Yes, it is challenging - very much so, for some. And having to go through it like a puzzle is the main point.
PS - you read the Chrysalids in high school? We read that in grade 5. Great book, but I'm surprised it would be on the high school reading list.
Grade 9 for Chrysalids (you probably went to one of those hoity toity private schools your professor mom and dad sent you to!).
Like I say... The Canterbury Tales... Tess of the D'Urbervilles... Uncle Tom... etc... all have their place in history; however, there have been books written under the modern context that offer the ability to teach the items you mentioned.
But we split hairs. All is good. I just hated Shakespeare. And Milton. And Chaucer. I respected all of them... but couldn't dig the work. I did like Timothy Findley (The Wars).
No way man, I'm a product of the public school system (those bastards, hahaha). Fair enough - I also love Milton and Chaucer, lol, so there you go. Not like I kick back with a nice thick volume of Shakespeare's tragedies or a hard cover edition of Paradise Lost or the Canterbury Tales, lmao, but I enjoyed studying them and have a deep appreciation for them. But I do argue that you actually can't get the same kind of thing out of modern books that you can out of Shakespeare or Chaucer, etc. The way that language is used in Shakespeare, for one, has no modern comparison as a teaching tool. Not even close.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I read Shakespeare now that I understand it better. And I agree with PJ Soul about having to learn and try to figure out the language, even though it's hard. I'm also a public school kid and the same fabulous teacher (junior year) who taught us Macbeth taught us Canterbury Tales and she made them entertaining and hilarious. There was farting!
We had to memorize the opening and I can still do some of it - at a high school reunion a bunch of us did it together (we were probably drunk). "Whon that Aprille with his shure sote, the draught of March hath pierced through the roote..." (I did that without looking at Google, I swear.)
I hated Beowulf. I think we read that senior year. Years later I read Gilgamesh (that's where Enkidu's from, btw) and thought it was beautiful. Way better than Beowulf.
I'm with you - I hated Beowulf! It just didn't do anything for me at all as a story. So boring. Although it did still aid in my "training", which is, again, the point I guess... and it has actually aided me when watching Jeopardy.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I read Shakespeare now that I understand it better. And I agree with PJ Soul about having to learn and try to figure out the language, even though it's hard. I'm also a public school kid and the same fabulous teacher (junior year) who taught us Macbeth taught us Canterbury Tales and she made them entertaining and hilarious. There was farting!
We had to memorize the opening and I can still do some of it - at a high school reunion a bunch of us did it together (we were probably drunk). "Whon that Aprille with his shure sote, the draught of March hath pierced through the roote..." (I did that without looking at Google, I swear.)
I hated Beowulf. I think we read that senior year. Years later I read Gilgamesh (that's where Enkidu's from, btw) and thought it was beautiful. Way better than Beowulf.
Sacrilege! Beowulf is awesome! Battling Grendel and Grendel's dam! Love it!
And I can still recite the prologue to the Canterbury Tales, and several other passages. But my specialty in grad school was medieval literature.
I think when kids are young, the most important thing is to let them read stuff they want to read. Get a kid interested in reading first, then they will eventually read books with a little more substance. Required reading of any kind kinda stinks to me.
The worst of times..they don't phase me, even if I look and act really crazy.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
I think when kids are young, the most important thing is to let them read stuff they want to read. Get a kid interested in reading first, then they will eventually read books with a little more substance. Required reading of any kind kinda stinks to me.
That's a good idea. Years ago, I took a class on developing reading curriculum and the prof told us about a kid he tried to get interested in reading and nothing seemed to work. Then one day the kid mentioned being a Doors fan so the teacher gave him a copy of No One Here Gets Out Alive and all of the sudden the kid was hooked on books.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
TKAMB is one of the greatest works of the 20th century, period!
Yes, PJ Soul, more Shakespeare. I was lucky to have great English teachers who told us Shakespeare was meant to be spoken, not read. If any of you haven't read The Tempest, take a look. So beautiful. But I had to be a grown-up to really appreciate it.
"Be not afeard; the isle is full of noises,
Sounds, and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not..."
I excelled in math. just because others didn't, doesn't mean I assume they have shitty teachers or that they suck in math.
Cheers,
HFD
There's depth to Shakespeare that's definitely better appreciated by more mature students but I don't think he's beyond high schoolers. Again, it's the approach. Hearing the language, with tone and inflection, makes it much easier to comprehend.
A book I remember that blew me away in high school was The Autobiography of Malcolm X. It stuck with me for a long, long time.
Speaking of plays, has anyone ever seen a good stage performance of TKAMB? I haven't but would.
Again for Shakespeare, mid summer night sucked, Macbeth, Romeo and Othello I liked.
Funny, I was the exact opposite. I honestly don't even remember if I bothered reading TKAM or if it was part of the curriculum at any point (I'm sure it was and I blew it off)....I was bored stiff by Grapes of Wrath.....maybe I should go back and try reading some of these 'greats' again. Now that I have slightly less of a chip on my shoulder than I did as a teen...
But Shakespeare? At first I was like 'how the fuck am I going to get through this? (Merchant of Venice was first) What does this even mean?' I swear it took me an hour to read five pages....but at some point something clicked and I was able to 'get it'...and I loved it.
Studying Shakespeare is more out of respect for his work at a time when that type of work was revolutionary. But I'm sorry... as groundbreaking and awesome as it was at the time... it's simply not that fantastic or relevant in my eyes to the average high schooler. Advanced classes, a tribute paid in Social Studies classes and a university elective course for sure. Might be just me. I dunno.
My daughter went to a Catholic all girl high school and first semester freshman year she had to read Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Rebecca, and something else that was just like those three and she ended up hating all of them. A little variety might have been better. Later they read Catcher in the Rye and she was very, very happy.
But in addition to being successful, much of his writing is brilliant. Not all of it. He got better and better with time. Generally speaking, he first wrote his comedies, then histories, then tragedies. That's why his tragedies are many of his best works. The themes are still timely, especially as they relate to depictions of power and struggles for it.
I don't think Shakespeare is beyond high school kids. I think it hinges on the choice of plays and how it's taught. I can't emphasize enough how much difference it makes to see or hear the plays.
PS - you read the Chrysalids in high school? We read that in grade 5. Great book, but I'm surprised it would be on the high school reading list.
Like I say... The Canterbury Tales... Tess of the D'Urbervilles... Uncle Tom... etc... all have their place in history; however, there have been books written under the modern context that offer the ability to teach the items you mentioned.
But we split hairs. All is good. I just hated Shakespeare. And Milton. And Chaucer. I respected all of them... but couldn't dig the work. I did like Timothy Findley (The Wars).
Fair enough - I also love Milton and Chaucer, lol, so there you go.
But I do argue that you actually can't get the same kind of thing out of modern books that you can out of Shakespeare or Chaucer, etc. The way that language is used in Shakespeare, for one, has no modern comparison as a teaching tool. Not even close.
We had to memorize the opening and I can still do some of it - at a high school reunion a bunch of us did it together (we were probably drunk). "Whon that Aprille with his shure sote, the draught of March hath pierced through the roote..." (I did that without looking at Google, I swear.)
I hated Beowulf. I think we read that senior year. Years later I read Gilgamesh (that's where Enkidu's from, btw) and thought it was beautiful. Way better than Beowulf.
And I can still recite the prologue to the Canterbury Tales, and several other passages.
Required reading of any kind kinda stinks to me.
even if I look and act really crazy.