This afternoon I have my end of year Literature exam during which I will write an essay on Hamlet, and another on Jane Austen's Emma. Despite having professed offhand dislike for Jane Austen in general (the ignorance of this is not lost on me) I will miss Emma and her ridiculous existence. I will not miss, however, having parallels drawn between Emma and myself - as those around me have been tempted to do!
However it is with Hamlet that my heart lies - the play being, in my humble student opinion, not being about 'a man who could not make up his mind' - but an exploration into morality, into illusion and reality, and the nature of humanity at both its best, and its worst. My family agree with me on Jane Austen (has anyone ever considered the possibility that she WASN'T being ironic? HUH??) but we disagree on Shakespeare. They adopt the view that Shakespeare is being unnecessarily taught year after year - when there is such prevalence of literature that holds much more significant meaning to students, and through studying which would take away something much more than anything old King Richard III could teach.
I don't agree though! Sure, we should encourage the use of more modern texts within school's curriculums but for goodness sake don't stop teaching Shakespeare! The incredible thing about Shakespeare is that his work, instead of losing its relevance with time and technology advances and the relative abolishment of the class system and whatever, it has instead retained its relevance within society today and significant meaning can still be found within all of his work. I can accept that we probably teach too much Shakespeare in our schools (in my school, anyway) and I think we shouldn't start Shakespeare until year 11 at least. The worst thing about teaching Romeo and Juliet in year 9, for example, is that most of the complex but glorious imagery is lost on students as they struggle to differentiate between 'thou' and 'thy'.
Anyway maybe I should actually reread Hamlet instead of talking about its relevance in society today. As much as it would please the examiners to see such passion in regards to keeping Shakespeare in the curriculum I don't think it'll do me any favours to misquote...
'To be, or not...not to...uhhh...'
Why don't you like Jane Austen's works?
ReplyDeleteshakespeare <33
ReplyDeletethat is all.
oh, and i hope lit went well, too =]
well, i'm ashamed to say i haven't really even read much more of austen's work aside from emma but i've always given up only a little way of the way through pride and prejudice every time i try it. it's terrible of me but i just don't seem to have the patience to wade through it - my friends and i joke about how in emma, there are lterally pages worth of a description of a letter, or some pork or something or other. i know her significance lies similar to Shakespeare in her continued relevance and remarkably forward thinking but it Shakespeare role get stabbed and there's ghosts and witches and corruption of the state - in emma, there's some gruel, several letters and a wedding. see where i'm coming from?
ReplyDeleteI mean people get stabbed, sorry
ReplyDeletethe question of when jane austen is/isnt ironic might be a reason as to why some people think shes a conservatist (is that a word? if not i just made it one) whereas others think shes a relatively radical feminist
ReplyDelete