harry potter or shakespeare?
 

just saw this on the news http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...366230,00.html

should kids no longer be taught shakespeare and the classic and instead be taught something more contemporary?

and would this cause a "dumbing down" of kids?

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

In my view, although kids have been taught about the "clasics" by Shakespere, i think they need to be taught about something more upto date such as Harry Potter, as the main reason is the language in Shakespere is harder for kids to learn and understand.

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

unfortunately, as 'education' becomes more of a competition for rankings in league tables there will be an increased tendency to 'dumb down' the curriculum.

Shakespeare isn't the only part of our literary heritage, but needs putting in context with the rest of it, including Harry Potter - only teaching 'cool' stuff to kids is not a rounded education, in my opinion. :)

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

Harry Potter any day. I totally did not enjoy Shakepeare's 'works' when I was at school and still can not understand how people do, but each to their own I suppose. In a practical sense though, should studying classical literature be made obligatory? I personally don't think so, I certainly didn't gain anything from studying it apart from frustration. How is classical literature relevant to a modern society? Prince Charles says that education for employment purposes is a bad thing, whereas I think that making traditional useless studies like this compulsory is a much worse decision. It was a complete waste of time to me. It should be available to study but just as an option.

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

I love harry potter, it is the sort of book both kids and adults can relate to, shakesphere I dunno I never have been able to get round my head round that, we did not even touch it when we were at school, I would have liked to, I only tried to read it when I was at uni. I do not think it matters, I think that all that is important is that the child can read and enjoy what they read

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

Shakespeare wrote some great plays. Instead of studying Harry Potter, which really is rather ordinary (to be perfectly honest, I think the Harry Potter books and films are crap) perhaps Shakespeare should be taught in more modern English.

As a kid, I thought all this "Thou art" and "Wherefore" stuff was stupidly old fashioned, and the stories seemed horribly old fashioned. It seemed that you spent more time trying to understand the language than getting to grip with what was happening. But as an adult, I can now see that once you get past the old language, Shakespeare's plays wouldn't be out of place in a modern film.

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

as I said above, classical literature puts modern literature in context and is interesting in itself for getting an insight into life at the time.

How is 'modern' culture different when it comes down to how people feel & interact on a personal & emotional level? - the only difference is the context, and if your teachers failed to inspire anything other than 'frustration' , then either you weren't as receptive as you might have been, or they didn't do their job very well.

As Wayne said, the language can be a barrier, but again I would say that is down to the teacher to guide & explain - and can be fascinating in itself - Shakespeare, for example was a master of innuendo, properly explained his works contain many 'naughty' bits, that just reading would not necessarily have noticed. (even in the 'bowdlerised' version).

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

Shakespeare is wonderful.I first read his work when I was 14 and thought it was marvelous.How can anyone say Macbeth is boring.It's a fantastic tale of vanity,corruption,madness and betrayal with a wonderful come uppance at the end.Romeo and Juliet HAS to be the most romantic love story of them all and where would West Side Story come from without Shakespeare having written the original.

Shakespeare's stories are still contemporary today.All we need do is apply modern language and idiom and they come to life.His characters are wonderful and larger than life.

Indeed IF Shakespeare was a contemporary he'd be in the West End or out in Hollywood hopefully turning out better stuff than we get at present. :D

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

Personally I'd recommend Pratchett instead of Potter, but I do know that my appreciation of Shakespeare was definitely spoiled by having it shoved down my throat at a time when it was just tedious and uninteresting and it took a long time before I felt like going back and looking at it again and appreciating the subtleties of it.

Anyway, everyone knows that Hamlet is just a bunch of famous saying all strung together :)

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

I think it is important to obviosuly go for what kids are interested in, but also educate them into other things they dont know such as these texts from the past.
You learn the different ways of writing, how language is used, and it opens up your mind to differnces within the English Language.

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

Following up to myself:

Additionally, this allows you to sneak Shakespeare in by the "back door" since once they've read eg Wyrd Sisters it gives new light on a certain Scottish Play :)

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

I thought this was a subject orientated at language not sociology/psychology?

So basically what you're saying is that if people aren't interested in it then they haven't understood it properly? That everyone who understands it will always enjoy it?

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

Harry Potter isn't written as intellectually as Shakespere naturally. It does, however, grip the kids better. The kids will be more attentive, more responsive. Therefore it is easier to teach them with HP than WS.

As long as the kids learn the same lesson, then the reference material is err, immaterial. I do think though, HP will lack real world examples of what the teacher is trying to get across to the pupils though. If the examples are there, then good.

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

Shakespeare is obviously better, but i think the case of better and the actual poll is slightly weird. Harry Potter is more popular but once the fad dies down it will not have the same effect Shakespeare has had.

What we are actually talking about is what will shown in the answer. If we are talking about what should we give kids then i would say harry potter. Why? Because at this stage we need to have children reading and enjoying it. Many kids first contact with actual books (you know, no pictures) will be at school. At this time you want to draw them into reading, not turn them away from it. Shakespeare is very good but it is difficult to learn as you have the language but then you have a lot of analysis and children get turned of with this. I know i did.

Harry potter is popular and a fun, easy read. It is exciting and make you want to read the next page until late at night. It really does draw people into reading. Give them that at first and let them get into it! By year 9 get some interesting but slightly more advanced books. At by year 11 introduce them to Shakespeare. That way they like and enjoy reading and not only will keep reading after school but will learn Shakespeare far more effectively.

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

I didn't read any shakespeare at school and the only two books that I can actually remember are.....

Goodnight Mr Tom and Z for Zachariah. (I must have liked them as I went and bought both).

If I was going through school now I guess I'd like to read more up to date titles.

I can't comment on shakespear tho - I've read some since, but probably wouldn't have enjoyed it at a younger age.

Edit - As long as kids get into reading I'm all for either :)
p.s. Space Cadet (heinlein - well I was young) got me into reading.

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

lol - no, I am saying that anyone will struggle to 'understand' it, 'it' is too large a concept - that is why we classify into genre ;) - Sci Fi, Romance, Detective - ? :D
__________________

'Tunnel in the Sky' :nworthy:

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

Not read it - but I've got it in an ebook (54 heinlein books in one :)) - So I'll give it a read :)

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

watch out for stobor ;)

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

Except that me, being a smartarse looked at that word and was then expecting something completely different from the plot which never happened and left me very disappointed.

Personally, however, I'd recommend "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" as one of RAH's best, ie after he stopped writing "Boys Own" stories, but before he wanted to have sex with his mother (and it *doesn't* feature bloody "Mary Sue"/ RAH's w**k fantasy Lazarus Long!!)

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

I have this within my ebook too so I'll no doubt give it a go. Thanks :)

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

I'll second that, it's a Dinkum Thinkum of a book. (In joke for those that have read it.

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

I hated it.But then I hate RAH with every fibre of my being.Clunky 50's dialogue and a totally unrealistic vision of women is the norm in his books. :rolleyes:

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

I have to ask ... but why is shakespeare the yardstick by which everything else is judged.

Children and Adults need to have a broad reading base, and I'm sorry but shakespeare should be dropped in favour of more modern authors.

Shakespeare has it's place for those studying English lit, but mainstream should offer a much wider choice.

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

Wholeheartedly agree with you. Shakespeare is wonderful, truly wonderful. :cool:

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

I always used to wonder that. What kind of 'magic' writing did he do?
Well, eventually, I actually got around to watching the Scottish Play and I was hooked. Wonderful stories beautifully told.

But, at the same time, no comparison can really be made with contemporary authors.

Least of all this Harry Potter guy - never read anything of his...

I don't know about being 'dropped', but perhaps given slightly less prominence...

Go watch a 'Shakespeare 4 Kidz' production - makes Shakespeare accessible to any audience - down to primary school age!

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

the trouble is that the curriculum can never include all literature, so by looking at certain 'milestones', including Shakespeare & Dickens, it is hoped that the student will be inspired to fill in the gaps.

I was an avid reader, myself - all 'traditional' childrens stuff, like Enid Blyton, Swallows & Amazons, The 'Lone Pine' series - Shakespeare added a more 'adult' dimension, while retaining the fundemental of a good story.

I can see how contemporary kids may struggle to comprehend such stuff - but I also think that is a symptom of today, in that they only want to 'graze' on easily accessible media - having to think about something, in order to understand it, doesn't really happen, any more. (I was amazed that my son won't contemplate watching any tv program that is in monochrome - he automatically classified it as 'boring')

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

I think that children need to develop a knowledge and appreciation of both traditional and modern literature.

Ideally,the teaching of it should be pitched at a level and time when the pupils would most appreciate it.

Harry Potter is a modern classic with wide appeal. It can be read to younger children and can be read by older children and adults. Shakespeare is pitched at older children and adults, but there are simplified versions for younger children.So both can be enjoyable.

It would be a shame if children were deprived of either.

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

Enid Blyton!! :D:D:D:D:D I love her books! I'm 30 and still read them now :D:D :blush:

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

Why not teach both? I never studied Shakespear at school, but we did read quite a wide range of stuff. Our English teacher said she considered it more important to study a range of authors rather than one.

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

I found Shakespeare very difficult in my English lessons. I would rather have done about Harry Potter, as I never understood most of the language used by Shakespeare and I find Harry Potter more "interesting".

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

I wonder why I never read Shakespeare at school - I feel left out now.

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

i think you've just hit the nail on the head for me.
i think reading something like harry potter is good for younger kids, it gets them interested in reading. my nephew and i have been reading harry potter together for a year or so and also roald dahl, what makes me really smile is he (at six) has now caught the reading bug and will sit in his room and read books for hours.

maybe contemporary books do have their place in children till say 14... when in most cases they are then ready for something more challenging.

i think it was scastle who said that schools should have place for both contemporary and classics, which i totally agree with

also diamen... the poll was nicked straight from the sky news website so :p:

i find it interesting to see that the majority of voters atm have voted "who cares" was it just lack of another option? or do we really not care what our kids read at school?

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

My schools seem to have avoided them where possible. Probably to stop us automatically loathing WS. The trouble is they forced more rubbish on us (Tess Of The D'Urbervilles, yippee :rolleyes:), to loathe instead.

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

I think something more modern like Harry Potter should be taught. I know when I did Shakespear three years ago for my SATs it was the most boring thing ever, did not understand it and had eventually I gave up. Now if that was something like Harry Potter I would be interested because it is more modern and we can relate to some of the things a little easier.

I know some of our English staff have had enought of the "classics" and want us to do more modern but they are told what to teach so have no choice. I think if they want grades to improve they need to stop teaching all the old rubbish and get with the times.

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

That way we end up disregarding more and more of our past in an effort just to stay with the times.. :erm:

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

It is not getting disregarded as things like that are taught in History.

Re: harry potter or shakespeare?
 

We still need the literature of our past for the same reasons as we learn history.To maintain our culture and hopefully to learn from the shared experiences of others.If we only learn that which is modern we lose touch with what has made us what we are today. :)