CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I think Shakespeare is still relevant today even if his plays are only seen as Classic literature they are still being put on around the world and new film versions of his plays are still being made. I think it is a good idea to read the original texts otherwise you are not reading Shakespeare but someone else's interpretation and a lot of things can get lost in translation but I am aware that Olde English can be a struggle so maybe studying the original text's alongside modern versions would help
Ah! One of my other passions apart fro- debate and philosophy would be literature! My reason for advocating Shakespearean literature to be taught in schools is simple - it is beautiful.
It is beautiful because the depth and sophistication of Shakespeare's work inspired many modern tales and developments in the English language. Words such as "assassin" (and "assassination") and phrases like "cool as a cucumber" were invented by Shakespeare. Much more lessons in etymology could be learnt by studying Shakespeare's work. This will definitely allow students to better develop their reading and writing skills.
It is irrelevant to modern writing. If you wrote like Shakespeare nowadays nobody would understand you. Good literature is something that generally every reader can understand upon reading it. It shouldn't need to be analyzed 50 times over for a metaphor that might be there. I find it annoying
Sorry I haven't replied you for so long, I'm happy to engage in discussion if you're still interested.
It is irrelevant to modern writing. If you wrote like Shakespeare nowadays nobody would understand you. Good literature is something that generally every reader can understand upon reading it.
I disagree with you on a few levels.
First, you said, "Good literature is something that generally every reader can understand upon reading it." This is definitely not true. There are so many sophisticated writers today such as Salman Rushie and perhaps Anne Rice who write incredible works of literature without every reader understanding all of what they are writing just the first time. Good literature should not be judged by how easy it is to understand alone, but how sophisticated it is and how relatable it is to the readers.
And you said that, "It is irrelevant to modern writing. If you wrote like Shakespeare nowadays nobody would understand you."
Why is it irrelevant to modern writing? Shakespeare invented words like "assassin" (and thus, "assassinate" and "assassination") and phrases like "as cool as a cucumber". It would be great for students to know the etymology of these English words and phrases. If anything, it makes the English curriculum much more interesting and fruitful.
It shouldn't need to be analyzed 50 times over for a metaphor that might be there. I find it annoying
First, just because you find such in depth analysis annoying does not mean that Shakespeare should not be in the high school curriculum. That is just falsely appealing to emotion.
Second, such analysis is required to put words in in context, of how the words are used in a sentence, monologue or soliloquy and of the societal context of Shakespeare's time and/or the historical, societal context of the time period Shakespeare is writing about (with reference to the famous tetralogy).
I understand how it hold historical relevance, but in todays world, it's pointless. The only job available to english majors is english teacher. No other job requires knowlege of such literature.
Really? What about being stage and/or screen actors? Or scriptwriters? How about journalists, news anchors and TV program hosts? Those who work in the advertising and marketing industries? These are just some jobs which could very possibly require a higher level of proficiency in the English language. And just because it is not a job requirement does not make it invaluable as a form of knowledge. For example, being able to press and fold clothes might not be a major job requirement other than perhaps a domestic helper, but that does not mean that it is not an important, fundamental lifeskill. In the context of literature, the study of literature at such levels helps to preserve and perhaps enrich the culture of English speaking societies. Just as infrastructure and sculpture preserve the architectural heritage of a society, works of literature, such as those by Shakespeare, preserve the language heritage of our society.
Yeah it's so easy to nail those plentiful jobs. The point is it's irrelevant in modern day. Past culture is not important at all. Science is. Logic is. Skills are needed in economics, foreign affairs, science and technology, engineering, ext.
In a world with war, global warming, terrorism, and increasing demand for technological advancement, Shakespeare is out or place.
The point is it's irrelevant in modern day. Past culture is not important at all.
How so? Past culture is the mother of modern culture. All of modern culture is rooted in the past culture.
Science is. Logic is. Skills are needed in economics, foreign affairs, science and technology, engineering, ext.
And very little of those skills are needed in creating works of art, such as music and sculptures, where an understanding of literature would be important.
In a world with war, global warming, terrorism, and increasing demand for technological advancement, Shakespeare is out or place.
Really? The last I checked, works of Shakespeare have provided mirrors of human nature. They show how the best and worst of humans can act when in various environments. Such depictions would give us opportunities to reflect upon our own actions and perhaps help us make better decisions in the future.
It mothered modern culure but it is not actually modern culture.
Works of art, music, and sculptures. These things are luxuries. not at all important to the many problems that plague our world today.
Reguardless of what it says. It only helps if people can understand it. Which, the majority cant. And im pretty sure modern writers have written the same things in language that is easy for everyone to understand. Shakespeare just wrote it first.
It mothered modern culure but it is not actually modern culture.
I didn't say it was modern culture. Don't misconstrue my words.
Works of art, music, and sculptures. These things are luxuries. not at all important to the many problems that plague our world today.
And inventions of science and technology are not luxuries? Tell that to those living in absolute poverty in sub-Saharan Africa.
Furthermore, instruments do not solve our problems, people do. And for people to have the impetus to solve problems, we need to constantly self-reflect and think about how our actions impact others. This was what the Chinese philosopher Confucius argued for. Confucius recommended that people reflected on their actions three times each day. If I were to use this example, a majority of people might not be able to understand what the Confucius's Analects says in the original text, but that does not mean that it is not important.
Reguardless of what it says. It only helps if people can understand it. Which, the majority cant. And im pretty sure modern writers have written the same things in language that is easy for everyone to understand. Shakespeare just wrote it first.
My first literature teacher told me that those who say exactly what you are saying that it is difficult to understand Shakespeare, haven't actually read Shakespeare at all. You obviously show yourself to be extremely uncultured, specifically when it comes to Shakespearean literature.
And, you'd find that most modern writers draw huge references to Shakespeare's work. One example is the two-time Booker Prize winner and 2003 Nobel Laureate in Literature, essayist, novelist linguist and translator J.M. Coetzee. For example, in his book Disgrace, he quotes Shakespeare's Sonnet 1, "From fairest creature we desire increase, / that thereby beauty's rose might never die." Beautiful words written by Shakespeare. Coetzee quoted this to depict the irrational rationalisation of a sex addict who's a, fictional, communications professor. The novel, Disgrace, sets itself to highlight the life of those who have experienced the gruesome Apartheid in South Africa. And anyone who knows any history about the Apartheid and racial discrimination and conflict would know that this book is not only a great contribution to our English and, more importantly, South African cultures, but also a great reminder of the irrationality of racial discrimination. I would think that that is an important problem in the world today.
I don't see why a Shakespeare unit wouldn't be required? He influenced writing immensely, and his plays are of very good quality.
Also, like Jungelson said, he does have historical value, which is why i believe the unit should include discussing the history of Shakespeare's life, rather than simply reading and discussing his works.
Yes, however I believe some schools spend to much time on him, for instance: during freshman year we spent 2 weeks on "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck and 2 weeks on "Death of a Salesman" by Arthur Miller and then the rest of the year on "Romeo and Juliet" by William Shakespeare. Shakespeare is a good writer, but it seems (at my high school at least) like he is being looked at as "the best writer ever" while other good works and authors are being ignored or not given enough credit.
Something as old as Shakespeare should be optional, not compulsory. The point is moving on, not obsessing with the past.
I read almost nothing compulsory when I was in high school (mostly only short reviews to pass the tests, and even they sucked). I tried reading some few books (didn't get far), they were all extremely boring and downright pointless. The little I read gave nothing to me. Old is old for a reason. Old can still be used but it is not wise and it gives students nearly nothing (I know, I was a student myself and not that long ago) while newer and much more interesting works are readily available. Students themselves must be interested, if they are not there is no point for any of it, especially for something as old as Shakespeare. The fact that something is compulsory is already a turnoff, the disinterest begins growing before you even know what it exactly is. Truth is, the whole system is old and outdated...
Then I'd say you have a poor sense of quality and a bad taste for books... Unless the aspects you find interesting and fun are boredom and lameness, and utter lack of quality.
Seriously, old is old for a reason. Times move on, language and writing advance, and so should we. That which was new and good in those long past times is not anymore. Obsessing with old keeps the present stagnant - a very bad thing.
There are countless newer and better works available. Would be about time to start working with those, don't you think?
I read alot of new books, mainly fantasy genre- Discworld, Wheel of Time et.c. But I haven't read all of Shakespeare's works yet, although I don't like many of his sonnets, I like the plays.
When I was in high school I was really sick of discussions that went like:
My professor and several students:
"Oh, that character is holding a torch, the torch must symbolize their love burning in the darkness, surrounded by adversity."
"No, surely the torch is a metaphor for the sun that kills the envious moon!"
"But clearly the fire represents the burning radiance of her beauty!"
Me:
"Or maybe he's holding a torch because it's fucking nighttime and the character in question is walking in the dark and needs some way to see where he's going."
Teacher:
"But I can't use that to teach you about metaphors, similes, and symbolism, so it's better for your education if we just make shit up and read way too far into this story."
Me:
"I wish we didn't have to read these stupid plays."