Beyond the Bard: Why It’s Time to Rethink Mandatory Shakespeare
Let’s be honest: how many of us, trudging dutifully through Romeo and Juliet or Macbeth, genuinely connected with the text on that first bewildering pass? Remember the collective groan when the teacher announced Shakespeare? The frantic flipping between the dense, archaic script and the modern translation notes? The feeling that cracking this literary code was less about understanding timeless human drama and more about surviving an academic obstacle course?
For generations, Shakespeare has held an almost sacred place in English curricula. He’s presented as the pinnacle of literary genius, essential cultural capital, and the ultimate test of literary analysis. But the persistent groans from students, the glaze-over in their eyes, and the sheer difficulty many face in accessing the language itself beg a crucial question: Is the mandatory, often early, study of Shakespearean texts in their original form truly serving our students’ education today? Increasingly, the answer seems to be a resounding “no.” It’s time we seriously reconsider this entrenched practice.
The Language Barrier: A Wall, Not a Window
The most immediate hurdle is the language itself. Early Modern English, spoken over 400 years ago, is fundamentally foreign to modern students. Words have shifted meaning dramatically (“nice” meant “foolish,” “awful” meant “awe-inspiring”). Syntax is convoluted. Metaphors and cultural references are deeply rooted in an Elizabethan world utterly alien to a 15-year-old in the 21st century.
This isn’t about dumbing down; it’s about accessibility. Forcing students to grapple primarily with decoding the language places an immense cognitive load before they can even begin to engage with themes, characters, or plot. The result? Frustration, disengagement, and often, a deep-seated aversion to literature itself. Instead of opening a window onto universal human experiences, the dense language builds an impenetrable wall for many. Should the primary goal of studying literature be linguistic archaeology, or fostering a love for reading and critical thinking?
Relevance Lost in Translation (Literally and Figuratively)
Beyond the linguistic challenge, lies the question of relevance. While Shakespeare tackled profound themes – love, power, jealousy, ambition – his world view and societal structures were vastly different. His plays reflect Elizabethan/Jacobean hierarchies, gender roles, and beliefs that often clash jarringly with modern sensibilities. Presenting these contexts without extensive, critical framing can inadvertently reinforce outdated norms or simply feel irrelevant to students navigating contemporary issues like social justice, digital identity, or global interconnectedness.
Furthermore, the canon itself presents a narrow view. Mandating Shakespeare often comes at the expense of exploring the rich diversity of voices that literature offers – voices from different cultures, eras, genders, and backgrounds that might resonate more deeply and immediately with a wider range of students. Insisting on Shakespeare as the singular gateway to literary appreciation ignores the vast landscape of powerful, thought-provoking, and accessible contemporary and global literature available.
The “Cultural Literacy” Argument: Valid, But Flawed
Proponents often argue that Shakespeare is essential “cultural literacy.” Phrases like “to be or not to be,” “all the world’s a stage,” or references to star-crossed lovers permeate Western culture. Knowing Shakespeare, they say, unlocks allusions in film, music, politics, and other art forms.
This argument holds some water. Shakespeare’s cultural footprint is undeniable. However, is mastering entire plays in their original form the only or best way to achieve this literacy? Students can grasp these iconic references, understand the basic plots, and appreciate Shakespeare’s historical significance through well-produced film adaptations, engaging modern retellings (like graphic novels or young adult novels), or even well-curated excerpts after they’ve developed stronger foundational reading skills and cultural context. Forcing dense, original texts too early risks achieving the opposite: associating “cultural literacy” with boredom and confusion.
The Performance Paradox: Where Shakespeare Shines (But Isn’t Often Taught)
Ironically, the strongest argument for Shakespeare highlights the weakness in how he’s typically taught: performance. Shakespeare wrote plays, meant to be seen and heard, not silently dissected in a classroom. The rhythm, the passion, the humor – they come alive on stage. Watching skilled actors perform Shakespeare can be electrifying and illuminating.
Yet, classroom study often reduces these vibrant dramas to static texts for line-by-line analysis, historical context lectures, and hunting for literary devices. The dynamic energy is drained away. If we must include Shakespeare, shouldn’t the focus pivot dramatically towards performance – watching productions, reading aloud, perhaps even staging scenes – rather than silent, solitary grappling with impenetrable prose? This approach respects the text’s nature and can make it far more accessible and enjoyable.
Moving Forward: Supplement, Don’t Dominate
So, what’s the alternative? Abandon Shakespeare entirely? Not necessarily. The goal isn’t to erase him from history, but to rethink his mandatory, introductory role in the curriculum.
1. Delay Introduction: Introduce Shakespeare later in a student’s academic journey (later high school or university), when they possess stronger reading comprehension skills, broader historical knowledge, and greater maturity to handle the linguistic and thematic complexity critically.
2. Emphasize Performance: Prioritize experiencing the plays as performances – through film, live theatre (if possible), or dynamic classroom readings – before deep textual analysis.
3. Use Modern Aids: Utilize high-quality graphic novel adaptations, modern-English parallel texts, or engaging summaries as primary entry points alongside the original, not as a crutch but as a bridge.
4. Context is Key: Teach the historical and social context thoroughly and critically, examining the outdated aspects alongside the timeless themes.
5. Broaden the Canon: Significantly diversify the literature curriculum. Make room for powerful contemporary novels, diverse global voices, and genres that reflect the world students actually inhabit. Foster a love of reading first and foremost.
6. Offer Choice: Where feasible, offer Shakespeare as an option within a broader literature unit, rather than a non-negotiable mandate for all.
Conclusion: Prioritizing Engagement Over Tradition
Insisting that every student must conquer original Shakespearean texts, often at a young age and in a primarily analytical way, is an educational tradition that frequently backfires. It creates unnecessary barriers, fosters disengagement, and can inadvertently narrow literary horizons rather than broaden them. The language is a significant obstacle, the relevance isn’t always immediate, and the cultural literacy argument can be achieved through less alienating means.
Let’s prioritize student engagement and developing a genuine love for literature. Let’s build confidence with accessible, resonant texts first. Let’s diversify the stories we tell. And when we do introduce Shakespeare, let’s do it thoughtfully, later, and in ways that honor the plays as the living, breathing performances they were meant to be – perhaps through a riveting film version or a dynamic classroom reading. It’s not about diminishing Shakespeare’s genius; it’s about ensuring that genius can actually be appreciated by the students we’re trying to inspire. It’s time to move beyond the mandatory Bard and build a more inclusive, effective, and inspiring approach to literature education.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Beyond the Bard: Why It’s Time to Rethink Mandatory Shakespeare