William Shakespeare, a talented English playwright, has been included in the English curriculum of the United States for years. While English teachers love his work, often we find that students lack interest. Since beginning my studies his work in my freshman year, I’ve wondered why we teach Shakespeare’s work. What made him such a great playwright? I found that this topic has been debated heavily recently and have decided, after having heard both side of the argument, we should continue to teach his work in the English curriculum.

Supporters of Shakespeare in the English curriculum argue that his work transpires time. Although it isn’t as relatable as many modern works, his themes of love, war, and betrayal are still present in this day and age. However, Shakespeare did not write to be read but rather to be performed. This creates a problem admits Alan Craven, a professor emeritus at UTSA. Craven states “His plays were written to be performed. He conceived in them what an audience needs to know, if we come at his plays from books and classrooms, we are doing it the wrong way.” The Guardian, magazine, also talks about the obstacles of teaching a play without being able to see it performed. “…dramatic literature is a playground of opinions: why does Juliet say this? Why would Macbeth do that? The real answer is that we don’t know, but teachers are not encouraged to say just that: ‘I don’t know.’ Their own suppositions are often reported back in essays as facts.” Dramatic literature is to be interpreted by the beholder and that is hard to do when students only have access to the written version. Rarely do we see schools sponsor trips to theaters for students to see Shakespeare work preformed.

Those who say nay to Shakespeare curriculum say that his work fails to be relatable to our society. High schoolers have a hard time relating to things that were common hundreds of years ago. Modern works seem to be the answer for those that oppose Shakespearean curriculum. The connection that students may make from reading modern tales will likely grasp their attention, making the reading more bearable. Rajat Bhageria is an entrepreneur and the author of What High School Didn’t Teach Me: A Recent Graduate’s Perspective on How High School is Killing Creativity. Bhageria states in a blog post on The Huffington Post “…forcing students to do something in which they have so little interest will most probably result in students not reading or contemplating–the main goal of English–the books at all. On the other hand, reading more of the modern equivalent of Shakespeare will not only acclimate students to the literature that they will be immersed in every single day of their lives, but it will also be more relatable (and hence, students are more likely to fully read and contemplate the book)…As time goes on, perhaps even the CollegeBoard will realize that perhaps they should focus more on modern applications than classical ones, and perhaps one day more of the novels high school students read can be similar to contemporary novels and works.”

Bhageria continues with a more revolutionary and political stance stating “We have been teaching Shakespeare for decades, and sure it works, but unless we try something different, who’s to say the new system won’t work better? Without doubt, we cannot expect different results by continuing the same curriculum.” Although he brings up a good point, I don’t believe that we should simply stop using Shakespearean curriculum in English.

I found that my stance on this debate was more for than against. I do find that teaching Shakespeare is a great way to see how themes continue throughout humanity. Shakespeare often has lessons in his plays that are applicable to life no matter the age or background. I think people neglect to realize that not all the curriculum is Shakespearean. There are plenty of other works that have been included in my high school English career. As Matthew Truesdale put it “Also–where does it say that we can’t teach Shakespeare AND oral African tradition? In fact, why not work to draw links between the two?” However, I do think that a change in system with a more logically reasoning to including it should be considered. We’ve seemed to study Shakespeare without asking why we do, we’ve considered it a norm in American society just because it’s required. “It seems that the only reason that students today read Shakespeare is that some person in a governmental institution a few hundred miles away decided that they should. And every one listened. With very little reason. Why? The governmental officer may argue that Shakespeare is essential to understanding the literary influences of modern English, or that reading Hamlet helps students appreciate literary devices, or even something more absurd along the lines of ‘we’ve always done it, and it seems to work, so why not continue?’ But what scientific evidence is there that reading Shakespeare helps students in the modern age survive the work environment, live without government aid, and achieve familial goals? Very little….” Although not very formally put, Bhageria brings up a valid point about our education system and the lack of experimenting of new methods in this modern age. We must not continue to study Shakespeare just because it required, but because of the quality of his work. However we must not fall into tradition and fail to see his gift of playwriting.

Bibliography:

Bhageria, Rajat. “Why Do We Force Students to Read Shakespeare?” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 13 Jan. 2015. Web. 02 Feb. 2016.

Powell, Mark. “Kill Bill: Why We Must Take Shakespeare out of the Classroom.” The Guardian. The Guardian, 17 Mar. 2014. Web. 2 Feb. 2016.

Strauss, Valerie. “Teacher: Why It Is Ridiculous Not to Teach Shakespeare in School.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 13 June 2015. Web. 02 Feb. 2016.