For subject line, see icon...that says it all

[prosodic]

Just came across this editorial in the Toledo Blade...it was from April of this year, but this is the first time I've seen it.

To say I'm shocked is an understatement.

A quote:

Just 15 of 70 institutions surveyed require their English majors to take a course on the 16th-century author. And since a similar study was done in 1996, at least six of those schools either dropped or weakened those requirements.

Let's review...

English majors...NOT required to study Shakespeare.

How is that possible? HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE????

It is estimated that the man introduced 1700 new words into the English language. And let's not even discuss his plays or sonnets and how essential they are to the canon. He has had more influence on the English language than any other writer...how is it possible for any English major to get a college degree without studying him?

Of course, my specialization was Shakespeare (and medieval and Renaissance lit.), so if someone can enlighten me as to why Shakespeare isn't necessary...well never mind. It just isn't possible to enlighten me. I will NEVER understand it.

Comments

Beware ye tricksie journalists

[dimwit68.livejournal.com]

Reading that closely, I suspect that the situation isn't quite as dire as it appears. "dropped or weakened" suggests that courses that focus only on Shakespeare have been dropped (or made optional) in favour of courses that study Shakespeare in context with other authors or in a broader cultural context. Such courses would better enable students to understand the impact he made, and would provide a wider base for critical analysis of his works. They could be introduced quite early on in the course and those students who wanted to go and study him in depth could do so optionally at a later date. Whereas a course dedicated solely to Shakespeare could not be fully appreciated until the students had gained a substantial literary and critical background against which to make comparisons.

I'm not trying to defend things or say that this is how it is, just that journalists are well known for not painting the full picture and it may be worth looking at the full curriculum....

Re: Beware ye tricksie journalists

[prosodic.livejournal.com]

I absolutely agree that you have to put Shakespeare in some kind of context to make it relevant to contemporary times and issues, as well as to other writers. I've seen it with my own eyes...students (in high school anyway) respond much better to Shakespeare when they can somehow apply it to their life (look at the modern adaptions of Shakespeare in films - 10 Things I Hate About You comes to mind). That seems to be the case with any literature. In order to appreciate it, it has to make some kind of sense.

And for that matter, I can see Shakespeare not being essential for a non-English major. I get that some people find it torture. But for English majors, not requiring a study of Shakespeare is, as is pointed out in the article, a fraud. He is certainly one of the most influential, if not the most influential, writers in the English language. I would certainly hope that he is worked into the curriculum in some respect. After all, we wouldn't think of eliminating Chaucer or the Romantic poets, would we? Or even Beowulf. There is a reason these works are in the canon.

Re: Beware ye tricksie journalists

[dimwit68.livejournal.com]

I suspect the story's been sensationalized - you'll have to check it out if you're really outraged! :)

Would you read Beowulf in Old English or in translation ? If the latter, which translation and why ?

Re: Beware ye tricksie journalists

[prosodic.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you're right to some extent, but the fact that a study has been done of this at all would indicate that Shakespeare's importance is diminishing in academia. That alone makes me sad (not outraged...just gobsmacked and sad).

I really dislike Beowulf in Old English...I studied it a little bit, but it's a very difficult language to learn (although I'm fascinated by the similarities I see between old English and modern German). I have no idea what translation I studied...it was published in the Norton anthology around 10 years ago. I'm pretty sure they use Seamus Heaney's version now. And from what I understand, a movie version is going to be released in November. Angelina Jolie plays Grendel's mother. *snort*

Re: Beware ye tricksie journalists

[dimwit68.livejournal.com]

although I'm fascinated by the similarities I see between old English and modern German

That'll be because the language was heavily influenced by the Germanic invasions. Beowulf is essentially an Anglo-Saxon story after all; the sort of thing that may have helped to stamp the invader's culture on the indigenous population (or may not, depending on how you want to weigh up influences). Since it was intended to be performed rather than read, I would argue that you'd need to hear the Old English and study the sound, verse forms, and alliteration.

Yes, the Seamus Heaney translation has had good reviews. Shortly after it was published they had him reading it out on the radio here. He also read out some of the Old English - always better to get someone else to do it, I think :)

I await your review of the movie with great anticipation ;)

Re: Beware ye tricksie journalists

[prosodic.livejournal.com]

Believe me, I am well aware of the Germanic influences on the English language (and it IS a Germanic language, after all). I took a class about the history of the English language...that's actually where we studied the Old English. I'm just surprised that it's similar to modern German, because I figured that German probably evolved a lot over the centuries just as English has (although English has, as the saying goes, beaten up other languages in dark alleys and rifled through their pockets for spare vocabulary).

Well, just for accuracy, the actual quote (and I love it!):
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
--James D. Nicoll

Anyhow...

I don't know if I'll see the movie while it's still in theaters. If it's playing here, God forbid that they use any language other than English in it. All the movies are in English with Dutch subtitles, so if they use another language, I won't understand what's going on. That happened frequently in The Da Vinci Code when they spoke French (and I was only picking up on every 3 or 4 words).

Re: Beware ye tricksie journalists

[dimwit68.livejournal.com]

Well, the other big hit on English was Norman French, which German never suffered so it had a less troubled evolution :) I like your quote!

Knowing German did help a bit with Chaucer, that and copious footnotes :) I can't really deal with Beowulf though - too much for me.

Re: Beware ye tricksie journalists

[dimwit68.livejournal.com]

Mind you, there are a lot of very different German dialects (Bavarian springs to mind :). I wonder if the apparent continuity of Hochdeutsch is due to Germany being a relatively recent creation, so the language picked up a lot of the common bits of the different dialects,etc, etc ???

Re: Beware ye tricksie journalists

[prosodic.livejournal.com]

Well, I know the dialect in this particular part of Germany is a bit weird, and in some instances, not unlike Dutch. They pronounce Ich like "ish" instead of with a hard c sound.