Well, as expected, Julius Caesar went over like a fart in church, as far as my students were concerned, but they did learn something.
EDUCATIONAL RANT FOLLOWS:
I really have to question why the state of California deems one of Shakespeare's most boring plays to be of educational value. There is very little action in the play; the most interesting action is the stabbing of Caesar 33 times, as well as a multitude of apparently weakly motivated suicides at the end - "Here, good servant, hold my sword while I run into it and die!" In fact, not once, but twice does Shakespeare use this method to dispatch the conspirators. And other suicides follow. There is an interesting monologue or two in the play, but any of the monologues could be studied out of context (i.e. in an English anthology) without subjecting the average high school student to the monotony of a highly political and "chatty" play.
I find plays such as Othello and Taming of the Shrew far more relevant to today's youth than a political play about a dead Roman tyrant. Othello touches on the highly politically correct politics of race, introduces a fascinatingly psychopathic villain, and sends the audience on a deliciously ironic wild goose chase centering on a missing handkerchief. The plot twists and twists, like a good episode of Criminal Minds (though perhaps the comparison should be made vice versa), and the ending does not read as ridiculous or overwrought like the ending of Julius Caesar. Othello offers competing themes of jealously, hubris, rage, and power all vying for our attention. Taming of the Shrew, which, incidentally, has been made and remade into several popular teen comedies, deals with the universal humor of male vs. female politics. The double entendres ("What? With my tongue in your tail?) are still relevant; the struggle between man and woman is universal, and the lead characters are engaging, if not exactly "good role models." But no, Julius Caesar it is. Sigh.
P.S. I HATED Julius Caesar in high school, and the whole experience turned me off (and, I suspect, several of my classmates) to Shakespeare until well into my college years (for whatever reason, we never studied Romeo and Juliet).
EXEUNT EDUCATION RANT.
As I really struggled with the idea of subjecting my students to this play, I had to think quickly on my feet and cobble together a lesson plan. As our theme for the whole class is "The Human Condition," I decided to focus on humanity's attitude towards power and control, at least, as it is manifested in the play. We spent one day discussing the "Friends, Romans, and countrymen" speech given by Anthony upon the funeral of Caesar as an example of rhetorical parallelism (i.e. repeating certain phrases and patterns of speech to keep an audiences attention - a kind of "power" good orators have). We spent another day discussing why we should care about the state of politics, and what kind of power "we the people" have. We spent the final day discussing the Cassius-Brutus argument about corruption in politics.
I then assigned an essay with the simple (haha!) question: Does power corrupt, as popular wisdom would have us believe? Defend your answer with examples from our last two readings (Julius Caesar, Lord of the Flies).
To my surprise, the students came through with their essays, at least on one level. My students produced fairly lucid arguments for and against corrupting power. The problem was that the quotes they chose from the play were random, and I do mean random, and not necessarily relevant to the discussion at hand; one student did not even quote the play or novel at all, but gave an an otherwise articulate argument about the nature of power.
Note to self: We need to "review" - or, as I suspect, learn for the first time - how to write a literary analysis essay.
EDUCATIONAL RANT FOLLOWS:
What are they teaching these students? I am beginning to suspect that nothing is being taught about how to use various rhetorical styles (ex. a personal narrative vs. a literary analysis essay) or use more sophisticated writing tools. I went to a private academic high school that taught all of these techniques, but from what I have seen, nothing seems to be happening here. Because I tutor these students, I often see the notes and assignment sheets given to them by their teachers. All of them are good, solid, and academic assignments, but then I find out that the teacher has done NOTHING in class to prepare their students to tackle these assignments. For example, almost all assignments require MLA format, but no teacher ever tells the student what MLA means, or where to find the format and/or citation machines online; this scenario has happened on many occasions, by the way.
I used to find myself constantly having to teach MLA to my college students from the ground up; now, at least, I know why.
EXEUNT ALL.
I see arguments both for and against teaching Julius C. For: Different literature appeals to different people, for different reasons. Just because it wasn't your particular favorite doesn't mean that it won't speak to someone else. One of my favorite Shakespeare plays is Henry IV, which is long, tedious, and way longer than it really needs to be. But hey, the politics is pretty interesting stuff. But (against:) then again, Richard III can achieve a lot of the same goals that J.C. has (in terms of literary requirements) but provides a lot more action AND more compelling characters. (Dude, is there anyone so evil and bad-assed-in-a-bad-way than Richard III?) That's one of the problems with a prolific writer like Shakespeare: all his plays are great in some way, so you can make arguments for an against teaching any one of the plays!
ReplyDeleteAs for the question about "what the heck are they teaching those kids?" Well, SOMEONE has to teach them proper citation format, how to effectively weave quotes into a paper, how to use rhetorical techniques in writing. That person is you! After all, you're the English professor, are you not?
You know, I think the main things I learned about writing were: (5th grade): diagramming sentences. (8th grade): a 5-paragraph essay. (10th grade): symbolism. (12th grade): Writing syntax and style/basic rhetorical theory. Then, at R. College I was basically punged into literary history without any real teaching of writing style whatsoever. I did pick up on some of that in my Masters degree, with the emphasis on technical writing and cutting "fluff" from your writing.
That's a long rant to say basically....no, writing style isn't emphasized the way that thinking critically is. But I think teaching writing style is very important, and I applaud you for wanting to dive into that!
I just think that there are better representatives of Shakespeare's work than that play, which, btw, is very seldom performed for the same reasons just mentioned. PS I like Henry IV.
ReplyDeleteIn California, there are so-called "standards" for writing, however it is my observation that they are not being met. Most of my students come from a very posh and highly-rated school district, yet no time has been taken to teach the fundamental writing basics. It keeps me in business, but what about those students who can't afford to get help outside of school?
Students are supposed to "magically" know how to master the various rhetorical writing forms without class instruction in California. Classes instead focus on producing a politically correct "reading" of "ethnic" novelists (the only "white" novelist being William Golding, and, by my insistence, Hardy). The novelists presented are, fortunately interesting (for the most part), but without the proper critical reading OR writing background to "appreciate" the literature being presented, most students find them a bit of a struggle, or just plain tedious.