Why It’s Time to Move Shakespeare Off the Required Reading List
Think about your high school English class. Chances are, thick anthologies featuring dense columns of Shakespearean text featured heavily. For generations, the Bard has been treated as the undisputed cornerstone of literary education. But is this reverence actually serving today’s students? A growing chorus of educators, students, and critics argue we need to stop being taught Shakespearean texts and language as compulsory curriculum, not because Shakespeare lacks value, but because the way we teach him often hinders genuine literary appreciation and engagement.
The Linguistic Barrier: Lost in Translation
The most immediate hurdle is the language itself. Early Modern English, filled with archaic terms (“wherefore,” “thou,” “doth”), unfamiliar syntax, and obsolete cultural references, creates a significant barrier. Students spend immense effort simply deciphering what a character is saying, rather than analyzing why they say it or appreciating the deeper themes. This process feels less like unlocking literary genius and more like navigating a frustrating linguistic obstacle course.
Struggle Over Substance: Hours are consumed looking up footnotes or relying on “No Fear Shakespeare” translations just to grasp the plot. This leaves little energy for exploring complex character motivations, historical context, or thematic depth.
Artificial Appreciation: Forced exposure doesn’t guarantee appreciation. More often, it breeds resentment and a sense that literature is inherently difficult and inaccessible. Students learn to “decode” Shakespeare for the test, not for pleasure or personal insight.
The Question of Relevance: Connecting to the Modern World
Shakespeare’s enduring themes of love, power, ambition, jealousy, and identity are universal. However, the specific contexts – kings, queens, courtly intrigue, rigid social hierarchies – often feel alien and remote to contemporary students. While skilled teachers can bridge this gap, the constant need for contextualization highlights the disconnect.
Representation Gap: The literary canon, heavily weighted towards Shakespeare and other dead, white, European males, fails to reflect the diverse experiences and backgrounds of modern student populations. Where are the voices that speak directly to their lived realities, cultures, and challenges?
Missing Modern Mirrors: Literature should offer mirrors (reflecting student experiences) and windows (into other worlds). An exclusive focus on Shakespeare limits these opportunities. Students gain profound insights into 16th/17th century England but miss out on exploring contemporary issues through equally powerful, more immediately relatable modern texts.
The Opportunity Cost: What Else Could We Be Reading?
Perhaps the strongest argument is one of opportunity cost. Classroom time is finite. Every hour spent laboring over “Macbeth” or “Romeo and Juliet” is an hour not spent exploring:
1. Diverse Global Voices: Brilliant contemporary authors from diverse backgrounds offer fresh perspectives on universal themes. Imagine studying Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Mohsin Hamid, Ocean Vuong, Jesmyn Ward, or Haruki Murakami instead.
2. Modern Storytelling Forms: Exploring powerful modern novels, graphic novels, compelling non-fiction, or even analyzing sophisticated film and television narratives can be equally rigorous and often more engaging. These forms speak the language students use and understand.
3. Critical Media Literacy: In a world saturated with information (and misinformation), teaching students to critically analyze news media, social media, advertising, and digital content is arguably more crucial than decoding iambic pentameter.
4. Developing Personal Literary Taste: Forcing one specific, challenging author onto everyone can extinguish the nascent spark of loving to read. Offering choice and exploring a wider range of accessible, relevant texts is more likely to foster lifelong readers.
Addressing the Counterarguments: Is Shakespeare Essential?
The pro-Shakespeare camp often presents strong points that deserve consideration, but they don’t necessarily hold up under scrutiny:
“He’s the greatest writer in English!” While historically significant and undeniably talented, literary “greatness” is subjective and evolves. Teaching him exclusively or first implies a static hierarchy that ignores the wealth of genius produced since.
“It teaches complex language skills!” Decoding archaic language builds some analytical muscle, but so does analyzing complex modern syntax, rhetorical devices in political speeches, or the nuances of contemporary poetry. The specific skill of reading Early Modern English has limited practical application outside academia.
“It’s cultural literacy!” Understanding references to “star-crossed lovers” or “to be or not to be” is useful cultural knowledge. However, this can be achieved through excerpts, summaries, film adaptations, or contextual lessons within broader units – not necessarily through slogging through entire plays line-by-line.
“Good teaching makes it work!” Absolutely, passionate, skilled teachers can make Shakespeare come alive for some students. But why should exceptional teaching be required to make a core text palatable? Shouldn’t the texts themselves offer more inherent accessibility and relevance?
A Better Path Forward: Honoring Shakespeare Without Mandating Him
Moving away from compulsory Shakespeare doesn’t mean banishing him from education entirely. It means shifting his position:
1. Electives, Not Mandates: Offer rich, engaging Shakespeare courses for students genuinely interested in literary history, theater, or the specific challenge. Let passion, not obligation, drive enrollment.
2. Excerpts in Context: Use key soliloquies or scenes within broader units on literary history, themes (e.g., power, tragedy), or the evolution of the English language. Show his influence, don’t demand mastery.
3. Leverage Adaptations: Modern film, stage, and novel adaptations (like “10 Things I Hate About You” or “West Side Story”) brilliantly demonstrate the timelessness of his stories without the linguistic barrier. Use these as primary entry points.
4. Focus on Themes, Not Texts: Build curricula around universal themes (justice, identity, love, conflict) and include Shakespeare as one potential voice among many diverse authors exploring the same ideas, both classic and contemporary.
5. Empower Student Choice: Incorporate literature circles, independent reading projects, or thematic units where students can choose texts (including Shakespeare adaptations or graphic novel versions) that resonate with them.
Conclusion: Prioritizing Engagement and Relevance
Insisting that we need to stop being taught Shakespearean texts and language as non-negotiable requirements isn’t an attack on Shakespeare’s genius. It’s a recognition that education must evolve to serve its students. Forcing dense, archaic language onto teenagers struggling with identity, modern anxieties, and the complexities of the 21st century often creates barriers to literary love rather than fostering it. By broadening the canon, prioritizing texts that speak more directly to students’ lives and the world they inhabit, and offering Shakespeare as a fascinating artifact of literary history rather than the sole pinnacle of literary achievement, we can create a more engaging, relevant, and ultimately more effective literary education. Let’s keep Shakespeare accessible, but let’s stop making him mandatory. The future of reading depends on it.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Why It’s Time to Move Shakespeare Off the Required Reading List