Word.

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…

I’ve been reading Rex Gibson’s Teaching Shakespeare for my theory and pedagogy class (1998). Gibson gives a solid overview of using critical reading skills and literary criticism perspectives for interpretation of Shakespeare’s works. Of particular interest were his recitations of the perceptions held by traditional literary critics, juxtaposed with the tenets adopted by critical theorists. These varied viewpoints are couched as “perceptions” of Shakespeare, and offer simple guides for viewing Shakespeare through various critical lenses.

---

I had trouble with this criticism-centered lead in to the book, when compared with the other focus of the opening chapters, which is the assertion that Shakespeare is fun. It is important to note that Shakespeare was the popular entertainment of the time. The audiences were not hearing new stories; they were hearing a story they knew told in a new way, and that was the hook for the audiences. Gibson talks about how the adoption of Shakespeare’s works as “texts” carries them collectively away from the idea of the plays being scripts. Scripts are traditionally open to interpretation, adaptation, and manipulation, whether through setting, cast, or tone; scholars have diligently attempted to codify a “right” interpretation of Shakespeare’s plays, to the detriment of “play” (Gibson, p. 7—9). Nailing down a final version and interpretation of a play limits the players and the audience. How many innovative productions of Shakespeare plays have you seen over the years? Are you richer for having seen Macduff as a hard-boiled detective, or a gun-toting gang member as Romeo?

---

If we embrace Shakespeare in a learner-centered, creative way, freed from the constraints of scholarly interpretations and encouraged to craft our own ideas of how the show should look, we open ourselves to the creativity inherent in Shakespeare’s work. Creating opportunities for our students to see, hear, and shape Shakespeare for themselves allows them to be active participants in the learning process, and permits the teacher to be a guiding force, rather than the sole arbiter of a “correct” interpretation.

References

Gibson, R. (1998). Teaching Shakespeare. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.