Table of Contents
This might offend some people’s sensibilities… and I’m perfectly OK with that.
I am going to say something controversial. Not just because I’m an an avid reader, a former English teacher, and true and proud American. But because I’m someone who completed all his schooling in the States, plus two degrees. I firmly believe in education. Even the liberal arts, even though I think the time has come to consider university very differently than we used to.
No More Shakespeare
I don’t like Shakespeare.
And I don’t think Shakespeare has much of a place anymore in the modern classroom.
And to take things even a step further, I contend that the vast majority of people who say they like Shakespeare don’t actually like Shakespeare either. They just claim to because society deems they’re supposed to. And makes them feel uneducated or unsophisticated if they express their true feelings.
But I will come right out and say it: I don’t like it. I never have. And if it were removed from all American curricula, not only would I not shed a tear, but I think we’d all be better off.
Shakespeare and Whiskey
Shakespeare, to me, is like someone who has been brought up to think of whiskey as a complex, sophisticated, manly beverage… but no matter how hard they try, they’ve never enjoyed the taste.
So what happens?
They’re offered a glass of whiskey. Embarrassed to say no, they once again have their glass filled with something that to them tastes like turpentine, and they listen to the five-minute story of how their host came across the bottle. They sip it in small measures saying words like “smooth” and “delicious”, just so they neither make their host feel bad nor make themselves out to be uneducated and lacking in the understanding of how true quality is supposed to taste.
But they don’t like it. They never have. In all likeliness, they never will.
And that’s OK!
Personally, I enjoy whiskey. But I’m comfortable with others around me who do not. Diversity of thought and preference is perfectly acceptable. In fact, it’s better than acceptable. It’s preferable. Variety is one of the qualities that make the world a better place.
The Unfortunate 90%
But with Shakespeare it’s far worse.
Why?
Because I think the percentages are far different. I’d say something like 20% at most of those who claim to like whiskey actually don’t really enjoy it. But my estimate would be something more like 90% of those claiming to like Shakespeare are actually just spewing BS. Perhaps they’re trying to appear intellectual. Perhaps they’re attempting to impress others around them. Maybe they’re even trying to fool themselves. But whatever the reason, I’m not buying it.
Do some people legitimately enjoy these pretty but incomprehensible words strung together? I’m sure they do. People like all sorts of things the rest of the world don’t understand. The difference is: Shakespeare has become an institution. It’s a mandatory topic in schools. It’s shoved down the throats of unhappy children across the world, with no perceivable benefit short of just doing what society expects us to do.
And yet another difference between Shakespeare and Whiskey. Non-enjoying whiskey drinkers are the product of that guy who’s always bragging about how expensive his collection is. Shakespeare is shoveled into the psyche of our poor children by their schools! They’re taught Shakespeare is great… while sitting there suffering through hearing about something’s greatness while simultaneously not enjoying it at all.
The world evolves rapidly. Our school systems do not.
Schools Aren’t Evolving
At the last school I taught in, I made a proposal about how to revamp the entire way computers were taught there. We were based on a system whereby computers were treated the same way they were when I was in school a thousand years ago. Computers were a neat but passing fad. Computer class was a once a once-a-week side class, along with music and gym. And it stopped after 7th grade!
The system was beyond outdated.
In my proposal, the computer basics we learned in my class (primarily typing and Microsoft programs) would be incorporated into the basic curriculum. In addition, there would be options for advanced computer classes for the upperclassmen, with options like programming and graphic design. My “groundbreaking” idea of teaching kids things they actually might need in life was rejected. Immediately. Not a minute’s thought.
Why? Not enough time and too difficult to fix up an entire curriculum.
But guess what I bet they’re still teaching every single year? Good ole Shakespeare.
The Endless Cycle
Our kids are graduating from college nowadays with massive debt with degrees in Journalism or Psychology or Philosophy, without a job prospect in sight. We can give them real world skills from the earliest ages, providing them a chance at a bonafide future before they’re even two decades in this world.
But instead we’re still pushing them to memorize pieces of Hamlet or interpret sections of Romeo and Juliet.
And they’re not even appreciating that. Instead they’re just continuing their way through the endless cycle of pretending like they enjoy and understand something they completely don’t, so they can later stare in pity at their future children slogging their way through Macbeth once again.
Living in the Past
I’m not passionate about dropping Shakespeare from the curriculum. It’s certainly not the sword I’d fall upon. If a future employer told me to take down this post or risk losing my job, it’ll come down instantly without a fight.
But I do think there’s a problem, and retaining a mandatory and ubiquitous Shakespeare requirement does reflect a greater issue. I was surprised to find my 12-year-old daughter in Israel breaking her teeth on a Shakespeare play (the inspiration for this post). Why are we obsessed with the outdated? Why does the world advance forward at such a rapid pace while our schools insist on living in the past?
They won’t change things. The core requirements never seem to shift. And even though we aren’t unsuccessful in conveying the importance of biology and literature and American history, we will still have to contend with the fact that even if the students were interested, they might not longer be the things we should be requiring them to learn.
But we’re afraid to reevaluate. We’re afraid to change.
I think we should be afraid not to.
Maybe I’m making much ado about nothing (groan). But I honestly don’t think this is a small problem anymore.
I never was educated in Shakespeare, so I can’t speak to its literary merits in an authoritative manner, but his work has never spoken to me. I’ve seen plenty of productions and recordings of productions and movies and sometimes the actors and directors bring something to it that I like, but only when they’re actors and directors skilled enough to bring things I like to just about any material. Maybe with education I’d better appreciate why the work was popular in his time. Can’t say.
I went to the Jerusalem Academy of Music high school for two years, and as you can imagine the Shakespeare effect is very strong in those circles. I mentioned to a teacher once that I didn’t find most of Mozart’s compositions interesting. She told me to keep that to myself.
When it was proposed during WWII to slash spending on the arts, Churchill replied “Then why are we fighting this war?” Something like that. I would argue that to argue that Shakespeare is outdated is the same as arguing that the West is outdated. You can argue that, but that would be a form of suicide. Do I really need to make a case against suicide?