considering the enormous amount of shakespeare rip-offs and adaptations which have been around since forever (with a major resurgence in the 1990's at least) you would think you'd at last have the dignity to write *Juliet* correctly.
However, you do bring up a valid point, in a way. How do today's teachers keep youngsters who can't be arsed to sit down and study interested in Shakespeare? What are the reasons to do so? Clearly there have been more talented writers during the history of the English language, that is pretty much uncontested. Old Will wasn't even considered to be a genius in his time, only in the 18th century did he receive this status, maintaining it until today.
- One reason to study Shakespeare is that he has been studied intensely for nigh on about 300 years. You won't believe the amount of literature devoted to this. It can be argued that interpretation of texts is in itself a form of art, a form of science as well, a form of practicing and perfecting the art of argumentation? Hell yes. Take a walk in the library of Shakespearean studies here in Munich, the largest continental one of it's kind. Pick any topic, like for example who carries the blame in Romeo and Juliet. Make up your own mind if you want to or pick one of the available ones. Now prove that your theory is viable. Quote the original text or interpretations of it, disprove theories that are not concordant with your own. Sounds like a useful skill?
- It is, although it might appear snobbish, an indicator of education. Even a socially accepted one (being able to remember pi beyond the 100th fraction does rarely do this in most circles for some reason). Shakespear quotes abound in the every-day world, not to mention the mountain of words he invented. Ever heard about somebody asking for a pound of flesh? That there were more thing between heaven and earth that can be explained? That if you pinch me with a needle, do I not bleed? That all the world is a stage and we are merely players? To beware the ides of march? Et tu Brutus? I could go on but I don't want to bore you.
- The big one: does Shakespeare deserve the merits thrust upon him? Is not for example John Wilmot (2nd Earl of Rochester, you might have seen the movie The Libertine) a greater literary genius? I, for one, think that is the case but shouldn't you make up your own mind? Don't you have to look at least at one piece of his work in detail to judge? I btw groaned along with almost any other member of my class when we were told that we would be reading Macbeth way back in school, it just seemed like the right thing to do. After forcing myself through it, I still didn't like it. But I really needed a good grade so I read a bit more about. Loved it, haven't looked back in regret ever since. You might have a different experience and continue to be indefferent, but can't be bothered? That is so 1980...
- Everybody rips off Shakespeare. Everybody pays tribute to him. That is what being an icon is all about (even MTV does this on MTV... guess what? icons). Just two examples come to my mind right now and you might dismiss them depending on your preferences. A Sting song featuring the lines "my mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun" and an episode of Gilmore Girls (actually, I am convinced there were many) incorporating Shakespeare lines into their witty banter. It's fun to get these, not for everyone, of course. There is the low version of it, still fun though, of Romulo and I-forgot-her-name in WoW's Karakzhan (sp?). It is not as high-brow as you might think, it even gets into extremely popular video games!
- It is appropriate. While some of his texts are a bid on the bawdy side (I actually didn't get most of it at first. "It's a country matter" is referring to... you'll get there) there are many texts to choose from that are fit for adolescents. Take the above mentioned Earl of Rochester and you are left with maybe two poems (the only play usually accredited to him is called "Sodomy or the Quintessence of Debauchery". Guess what that is about).
Now there are arguments against it, no doubt. It is old, yeah. So is the Bible (or any other *original* religious text), Socrates or the Declaration of Independence. Americans usually love (forgive me for generalizing) anything in their country's history that is older than, say, 50 years and they should. But the language of your language is so much older (well, English ain't that old but it sure beats the frigging Mayflower) and part of your heritage.
I am sure most English teachers would rather teach with new materials and hand you a Shakespeare sonnet or two instead of doing Merchant of Venice for the eleventh time. Well, schools are usually dead poor and who is going to pay for 40-odd recent novels while the physics books are still from the year 1965? It is the good thing about literature, it is timeless every once in a while.
sorry for rambling, a plague on it!
