Read on Twitter
1) Literary value is not static. Discussing the value ascribed to any text is a fundamental aspect of doing English
2) Shakespeare isn’t going anywhere
3) Thinking about the reasons for his prominence is vital
4) I trust *nothing* from the Daily Mail https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9263735/Woke-teachers-cut-Shakespeare-work-white-supremacy-colonization.html
2) Shakespeare isn’t going anywhere
3) Thinking about the reasons for his prominence is vital
4) I trust *nothing* from the Daily Mail https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9263735/Woke-teachers-cut-Shakespeare-work-white-supremacy-colonization.html
Here’s an interesting chain of events to ponder over.
The vast majority of plays performed in the Early Modern era are lost to us. That’s because the vast majority were not written down to be published (if written down at all).
Shakespeare was one of the very few exceptions
The vast majority of plays performed in the Early Modern era are lost to us. That’s because the vast majority were not written down to be published (if written down at all).
Shakespeare was one of the very few exceptions
His close associates felt strongly enough to publish them as a collected works (the First Folio). This was incredibly rare at the time.
Fast forward to the Puritan closure of the theatres and unsurprisingly people stop writing plays.
Fast forward to the Puritan closure of the theatres and unsurprisingly people stop writing plays.
Now fast forward 20 years to when they’re open. For the first time in a generation people can watch plays. BUT...there are very few plays to watch.
So, what happens? Well, people start performing one of the few playwrights who happen to has their stuff published.
So, what happens? Well, people start performing one of the few playwrights who happen to has their stuff published.
Maybe then Shakespeare is read so much not because of his immutable value but because of a historical quirk that meant at the right time his material was available.
Or ponder the fact throughout literary history his work has been not at all valued (the neo-classicists tried to rewrite it because they thought it was barbaric — not enough rhyming couplets!). Or that this same wildness suddenly suited the Romantics who raved about it.
Now I happen to love Shakespeare’s work and love teaching it BUT this sensationalised view that his work is immutable and transcendent ignores literary history and the debates that rage within literary studies.
If we truly want our students to inherit the disciplinary traditions of literary studies they should also inherit the ability to question and interrogate the construction of its canon. Even Shakespeare.
And for anyone interested I’ll also leave this here which explores in more detail similar issues: http://codexterous.home.blog/2021/02/06/what-can-radio-1-teach-us-about-the-literary-canon/
I will also leave one final thought:
for me this kind of thing is a test case for those who desire a knowledge rich curriculum (of which I count myself one) because a knowledge rich curriculum in English *isn’t* enshrining without question the work of one writer.
for me this kind of thing is a test case for those who desire a knowledge rich curriculum (of which I count myself one) because a knowledge rich curriculum in English *isn’t* enshrining without question the work of one writer.
A knowledge rich curriculum means ushering students into the disciplinary habits and consciousness of a given subject, being conversant with its norms.
Debating, questioning, interrogating, opening up the canon IS in literary studies those norms we seek to introduce to our stds
Debating, questioning, interrogating, opening up the canon IS in literary studies those norms we seek to introduce to our stds
