On words, stories, and theatrical devices…
This week we needed to read approximately a hundred pages of Rex Gibson’s Teaching Shakespeare, which I have found to be a well-written and insightful examination of both Shakespeare and creative education methods. As I read the chapters on the literary devices and tricks of language that Shakespeare used, I am struck by the importance of the thorough grounding Shakespeare received from his classical education. The history, the solid basis in language and the grammars of the time, and the facility with language combined to allow Shakespeare to write plays in new and exciting ways, retelling stories that were well known to jaded audiences and enrapturing them regardless of their familiarity with the stories.
It is obvious to me that this is why we still read Shakespeare today, and why it is imperative that we introduce students to Shakespeare’s writings. He was a master of all the tricks they see today on the silver screen and on the glass teat; it behooves us to point out a truly cunning linguist when we can…
February 17th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Hi, Ludlow,
Like you, I was impressed by the historical background of Shakespeare’s language. Back then, the rules were a lot looser; dictionaries didn’t exist yet. This squares perfectly with what I learned in the History of the English Language class I took as an undergrad. I just love it when I’m given an opportunity to connect knowledge from two different classes!
To be honest, I just plain old =liked= that book. It was so well written, so easy to read. And it made Shakespeare seem like a lot of fun. I should tell you that when I took my first Shakespeare class in college — yes, in college — I was terrified by the language. (Believe it or not, I studied almost none of it in high school; the only thing I remember is the film version of Taming of the Shrew, starring Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor.) It didn’t help that my teacher wasn’t particularly reassuring as a lecturer. It’s not that he was incompetent; far from it. But he did nothing to assuage my fears about the subject matter. Gibson’s book is all about assuaging those fears. I will definitely use this book.
February 17th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I think we know Shakespeare is a good linguist, but it is texts, especially Gibbon’s chapter 4, that remind us really how good of a linguist and writer Shakespeare really is. I was blown away with the simple yet complex forms of language he incorporated into his plays. He really was a master of tricks, as the 47 page chapter about language points out.
Also, you’re right. Shakespeare must have had an excellent education to master the language and its function so well. However, one can’t forget or look over the themes, characters, and stories he develop which reflect the quality of his education.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
“I am struck by the importance of the thorough grounding Shakespeare received from his classical education. The history, the solid basis in language and the grammars of the time, and the facility with language combined to allow Shakespeare to write plays in new and exciting ways, retelling stories that were well known to jaded audiences and enrapturing them regardless of their familiarity with the stories.”
I wanted to respond to this as well and point out that Shakespeare had to memorize over 100 figures of rhetoric (page 47 as well). Was anyone thinking that we should definitely return to this idea (not the memorization, but the concepts) of teaching when they read Gibson? I think we could really make an impact as educators with our students by teaching them rhetorical devices. I learned so many new vocabulary words this week: deixis, anadiplosis, epizeuxis, catachresis — I could go on, but I will not torture you. I know you read the same thing I did.
What scares me is that I know my students are capable of learning these writing techniques; I just cannot for the life of me figure out how to make them sit still long enough to get these concepts through to them. I guess that’s next week’s class on management.
February 18th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Ok, I’m taking devils advocate here and I’m just going to let “it” out. “It” is the fact that I think Shakespeare’s language is outdated and incomprehensible to a modern audience. Yes. How did I obtain an English degree? Why do I want to become an English teacher with this jaded view of the father of modern storytelling? All I can tell you is “too bad” and our students think the same thing that I do.
Gibson is writing to us, English teachers. We are interested in Shakespeare’s education and fine, nuanced rhetoric, but for students the language is nothing but old and tedious. Students are working twice as hard at something they already do not like doing, which is reading. I respect Shakespeare, and I know all the reasons we have to teach him, and I respect those too, but delving into the complexities of his word choice is for dedicated followers of the English tradition, and for most others, the practice is just tiring.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Dear Royaloil:
“Ok, I’m taking devils advocate here and I’m just going to let “it” out. “It” is the fact that I think Shakespeare’s language is outdated and incomprehensible to a modern audience. Yes. How did I obtain an English degree? Why do I want to become an English teacher with this jaded view of the father of modern storytelling? All I can tell you is “too bad” and our students think the same thing that I do.”
Holy cow! I discovered just how right you are regarding my comment, your above comment, and children reading Shakespeare. I think as English majors we really love the English language, but to try to push such an archaic version of it down our students throats is just a travesty. Especially when Shakespeare can be (and should be) so entertaining and fun.
As for me and my class, we are sticking to the light sabers and the chasing each other around the room for now. I got hit with a pillow today. After reading my above comment, I think I pretty much deserved it. What can I say? You live and learn.
Cheerio, Tragalibro