Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
They aren't 'Shakespeare' comics. The 'quick' versions contain nothing of Shakespeare's poetry, & the full versions, which contain the original text, are redundant. And the 'art' is terrible....
|
That's because the
poetry of Shakespeare is not what's going to interest kids. The idea is that the things that happen in the plays are exciting, but kids rarely realize that because the language is virtually impenetrable to the novice. If an interest can be created, Shakespeare can be taught; if not, he's not the kind of author you can force down a kid's throat just by making his work required reading.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
Oh, believe me, there are many 'educationalists' in this country who would love nothing better than to dump Shakespeare altogether & replace him with something more 'relevant'.
|
Which is bad
in your opinion, but things
have to be left out of curriculum and your assessment of Shakespeare as necessary for the average teenager may not be all that well-considered. Shakespeare is not fundamental to education. He is a luxury, and an
introduction to his plays via a medium that kids are familiar with is better than nothing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
This is their attempt to make Shakespeare 'easy' - not for the kids, but for the teachers.
|
Those lazy, incompetent teachers. They should have their pay cut. Tell me, do you think they're having difficulty teaching Shakespeare to children because they do not understand him themselves and have no idea how to teach his work? Or is it, perhaps, because most kids in school have almost zero interest in reading
anything? Kids get out of school what they put into it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
No its isn't. Keats is greater than Dylan. Bach is greater than Andrew Lloyd Webber. Tolkien is greater than Robert Jordan. etc, etc, etc I place no value on 'opinion' at all, unless its the informed opinion of someone who knows what they're talking about & can offer some evidence in support. Now, I'm not saying that Keats is more 'popular' than Dylan, but that's another issue. 'I prefer 'X' to 'Y'' is totally different to ''X' is greater than 'Y''. The problem is that some (the minister I mentioned for instance) don't make that distinction.
|
You're imagining a distinction where there isn't one. I'd like to see the data you're referencing. Did you have to extract samples of Dylan and Keats themselves, or were you able to run the tests using pieces of their published materials? I'm really eager to see how the inherent value of these artists' work can be quantified and compared. Because unless you can do that, you're talking about
opinion and
taste, regardless of how many other
opinions validate yours.
Edit: Just so we're clear, I don't know much about Keats or Dylan. I've probably been exposed to an equal amount of each, and didn't really put much effort into either of them. If we were to go into it, you might be able to convince me to agree with you. That's beside the point, though. This guy believes that Dylan is a greater poet than Keats. When someone says "Dude 1 is greater than Dude 2," I hear nothing more than an opinion being voiced, and while I may wonder why they hold an opinion that seems so backwards, I know that it would be
literally impossible to prove the point one way or another.