Why the "classics" don't suck

[protege]

Because fireplaces are made out of bricks, and bricks are red!

Not always. True, when most people think of bricks...they think of red. But, there are other shades available--yellow, gray, orange, brown, and even some sort of purpley color

Seriously though, I hear ya. When I was in school, many times, it was either the teacher's interpretation...or else. Even if I could back it up, whatever I'd written would lose points. After awhile, I said "fuck it," and didn't bother even trying. Why bother busting my ass for a C or less?

[Lace Neil Singer]

For instance, we were reading Julius Caesar, while listening to it on audio cd because my teacher wanted us to hear what they were saying instead of stumbling with the words, but we had to read while they spoke. We got to the part where the murders talked about how they wondered how many times this scene would be shown.

When asked about what this meant, I said that it was Shakespeare putting in a joke about how many times his play would be shown. My teacher was pretty impressed, even though he expected someone to answer with "They were wondering how many people would rise against dictators". However, I got points for the creativity and spotting something that wasn't so obvious.

That is what a good teacher does.

Lol, my English teacher let us act out crucial parts. I got to act out the murder, as Brutus, with this other girl as Caeser. It was super fun and everyone else had fun watching. XD I got points for saying that us acting the play was the opposite of what it would be on stage back in the old days when they had men playing every part.

Also, when we were doing Animal Farm, my teacher got us to stage a school takeover where those of us who were playing the pigs got to take over the classroom. I played Napoleon, by the way; the baddies get all the best lines and are the most fun to play. We also got to spend an entire lesson watching the cartoon.

That kind of thing makes the difference between a good teacher and a bad one.

[jackfaire]

No, it's really more of a "we can't allow kids to pick books because there has to be some uniformity to what they're learning" as has been said already. You can't have a whole classroom of kids constantly reading different books. It's okay once in a while, for things like book reports, but to teach literary tools and subjects, there has to be something cohesive in the classroom.

Nope every single one of us in every English class I had through graduation read books that we wanted to read and we still learned all those things about literature.

Teaching kids that there is a climax in stories doesn't require them all reading the same books it requires them reading books. I don't personally think that the Harry Potter books were well written but my siblings who hated to read started with that series and now read anything they can get their hands on.

I am sure there are people that started reading Twilight loved it and now eagerly seek out other Vampire books which will inevitably lead them to better written ones with more advanced vocabulary.

[lordlundar]

I am sure there are people that started reading Twilight loved it and now eagerly seek out other Vampire books which will inevitably lead them to better written ones with more advanced vocabulary.

If even one picks up Bram Stoker's Dracula or Nosferatu and it makes them realize what a piece of shit the Twilight series really is, I'll be a happy person.

[Gravekeeper]

We had to read out or perform *every* line of any Shakespeare we were studying in high school. After finishing it in written format, we would view as many film versions of it as the teacher could find. Even if they included breasts and pale man ass. As one version of Romeo & Juliet did. But seeing as it included both breasts and man ass, I guess she figured it had something for everyone.

Aside from that my teachers loved Orwell mainly. Though we of course went through Anne Frank as well.

Never did Tom Sawyer or anything of that nature. It was always stuff like Animal Farm or 1984. She liked things that could be discussed at length with lots of underlying themes.

[AdminAssistant]

Aside from that my teachers loved Orwell mainly. Though we of course went through Anne Frank as well.

In my Theatre of the Holocaust class, we read some really interesting articles about the use of the Anne Frank story in various genres (the diary, plays, films). Very interesting stuff. At any rate.....

[jedimaster91]

I recall seeing so many different film versions of Hamlet's "To Be or Not to Be" speech it gave me a headache. I love Shakespeare, but let's do The Taming of the Shrew instead of Romeo and Juliet. More Tempest, less Julius Caesar. And if I never see a copy of Crime and Punishment ever again, it'll be too soon. Fark, I hated that book. With a firey, firey passion.

I think my favorite "classic" book I ever read in school was Waiting for Godot. A lot of people find it boring, but with the right English teacher, it's facinating. We even got to pick one of the symbols from the play and write a poem about it. The poems got compiled in a little book that I still have.

Maybe teachers could come up with a way to let the kids read at least one book they want to read and do some sort of project with it. That way the kids get exposure to the classics and hopefully won't hate reading by the time they're done with school. Or have a list of classics to read and let the kids vote on which one they want to do.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I read The Tempest, Macbeth, Hamlet and A Midsummer Night's Dream all off my own bat. I guess I'm just unusual, or very weird. ^^;;

I also did a less common Shakespeare play for A-Level; Measure For Measure. Hardly anyone I mention it to has heard of it.

[Ladeeda]

I recall seeing so many different film versions of Hamlet's "To Be or Not to Be" speech it gave me a headache. I love Shakespeare, but let's do The Taming of the Shrew instead of Romeo and Juliet. More Tempest, less Julius Caesar. And if I never see a copy of Crime and Punishment ever again, it'll be too soon. Fark, I hated that book. With a firey, firey passion..

Could not agree more. TOTS has the bonus allowing some EXTREME gender discussions. Is Katherine broken and submitting now? Is she just playing along? Is Petrucio a total dick who would be arrested these days? Is he just a weirdo who wants a playmate?

The version from Shakespeare-told is rather good, though their version of "I am ashamed women are so simple" speech is a very awkward scene.

I read The Tempest, Macbeth, Hamlet and A Midsummer Night's Dream all off my own bat. I guess I'm just unusual, or very weird. ^^;;

I also did a less common Shakespeare play for A-Level; Measure For Measure. Hardly anyone I mention it to has heard of it.

Because it's just not tragic enough.

[AdminAssistant]

I think my favorite "classic" book I ever read in school was Waiting for Godot. A lot of people find it boring, but with the right English teacher, it's facinating. We even got to pick one of the symbols from the play and write a poem about it. The poems got compiled in a little book that I still have.

I love Waiting for Godot, but it really doesn't belong in an English Lit class. One, it's theatre. Two, it's technically French. Yeah, yeah, Samuel Beckett was Irish. But he did all of his writing in France, his style is very French, and Waiting for Godot was one of his works that he originally wrote in French, then later adapted into English (the other one is Endgame). But I love love love Godot. For me, theatre should ask more questions than it answers, and Godot is a perfect example of that.

I hope you guys at least watched a film. So much of the play is just lost in a reading.

I also did a less common Shakespeare play for A-Level; Measure For Measure. Hardly anyone I mention it to has heard of it.

To quote a dear friend, "Richard II, the best Shakespeare you've never read!" Actually, I had to read Timon of Athens for a class once. The teacher's rationale was that was the only way we would ever be exposed to that piece. It's really pretty awful.

Taming of the Shrew would be a fun one to read, as would Two Gentlemen of Verona. Only problem with Two Gents is that you have to draw a map to keep up with which character is in love with what other character and what the hell's up with the dog? I also stand by the stance that adding in works by other playwrights of the period (Marlowe, Webster, Jonson, Greene, Lily) could add a lot of variety and defeat the notion that Shakespeare is the end-all/be-all of the dramatic arts.

[Tanasi]

My sophomore year of high school teacher took the class to the library and said we had to pick a book from this one certain section, read it and then give an oral report. When it came my turn to choose I chose Cyrano de Bergerac. We had two weeks to read the book and then over the course of the third week would be the reports. I was already somewhat familiar with high points of the book so I thought it would an somewhat easy read. One of the worst books ever but I struggled through it. The third week for our oral reports we were lucky that the report was just to be made to the teacher at her desk. When it was my turn she asked me three questions:
Did I actually read it?
Who wrote it?
and How much did it cost?
I can't tell you how pissed off I was. Go through all that for those 3 questions. I can tell you I didn't make that mistake with that teacher again.

Now my problem with plays is reading them in play format with all the stage direction was near impossible for me. The versions I had didn't have footnotes to explain some words and my dictionarys didn't have those words, so in effect those plays made little to sense to me.
I also think most of the imagery, ironies and other litterary tricks is just that tricks. The Rodney Dangerfield movie Back to School comes to mind. Rodney's character had to write an essay on some book, so being the rich guy he was he hired the actual author of the assign reading to write the essay. Teacher failed him and told him he either didn't read it or didn't know anything about literature. Now I know it just a movie but it also makes me this most of the tricks are BS, now if they can produce something the author wrote or said saying that then fine otherwise your opinion is no more valid than mine and grading my opinion is wrong.
Now I love to read and I have several books onqueue to read. I mostly enjoy Sci-Fi but I've read some of the classics some I liked some I didn't.

[AdminAssistant]

*gasp*

OMGmyfavoriteplayisCyranodeBergeracitisfreakingbri lliant!!

*ahem*

Cyrano, unfortunately, depends on the translation. There are two major English translations of Cyrano, one that is amazing (by Anthony Burgess) and the other one that really sucks. I've actually considered doing serious research on it, since it's a one-play literary movement (Neo-Romanticism) in an era of realism, naturalism, and the avant-garde. I find it fascinating that this play that was horribly unfashionable at the time became one of the best known pieces of French theatre.

Also unfortunate is the fact that the entire first act is one big ol' French Neoclassic theatre reference. You do need footnotes to get through it. One day I'd love to be able to read the original in French, apparently Rostand's use of the Alexandrine is to die for.

Stage directions are always controversial. For me, it depends on the playwright and/or how the play was published. If, for example, you are reading the acting edition of a Neil Simon play, chances are that all of the stage directions were written by the stage manager of the original production. (In some cases, said stage manager gets a poetic bug up their ass, resulting in some truly hilarious moments.) However, if it's an older play or a nice edition, there's a good chance that the stage directions were written by the playwright and indicate how they see the piece. Also, certain playwrights (Tennessee Williams and Eugene O'Neill especially) are known for their elaborate stage directions, which usually a lot of helpful information.

[ExRetailDrone]

While I've never read the play, one of my high school French classes watched Cyrano de Bergerac and I absolutely loved it. Granted, I'm not sure I would be able to get through a written version of the play or not.

As for English lit, I was in AP English my senior year of high school and read The Stranger by Albert Camus, which was originally published in French. It may not have had its place in a high school English class, but I really enjoyed it and it turned me on to works originating in other nationalities other than my own.

[Lace Neil Singer]

To quote a dear friend, "Richard II, the best Shakespeare you've never read!" Actually, I had to read Timon of Athens for a class once. The teacher's rationale was that was the only way we would ever be exposed to that piece. It's really pretty awful.

Taming of the Shrew would be a fun one to read, as would Two Gentlemen of Verona. Only problem with Two Gents is that you have to draw a map to keep up with which character is in love with what other character and what the hell's up with the dog? I also stand by the stance that adding in works by other playwrights of the period (Marlowe, Webster, Jonson, Greene, Lily) could add a lot of variety and defeat the notion that Shakespeare is the end-all/be-all of the dramatic arts.

I've also read Chaucer; I did one of the Canterbury Tales (The Wife of Bath) for A-Level, and was so interested that I had to check out the others. In Canterbury, of course. XD They have a brilliant thing where you can walk around a showpiece while listening to the tales. A lot of people who found Shakespeare hard would just fall down and die when reading Chaucer.

[ExiledV20]

Here's a good question: Can anyone tell me why every 'classic' of the 20th century is so godawful depressing? There's not a happy piece in the mix.