Photo courtesy of Max Muselmann
I am an English major. I have spent countless hours reading books and talking about them. I am well-read, and I am a big fan of the classics – “The Catcher in the Rye,” “The Picture of Dorian Gray,” and even “Crime and Punishment.” That being said, my love of old stories only goes so far, and I cannot understate how awful it feels when I enter a classroom and have to learn about Shakespeare.
Shakespeare’s plays are just that: plays. They were meant to be performed or read out loud, and our teachers and professors know this. These texts lose so much when they are not performed. That is why you were forced to sit through hours of your peers’ stilted English-class performance of “Romeo and Juliet” in high school. Imagine watching a play where the actors do not want to act … it sucks.
Plus, without a physical performance, many plays’ scenes become unintelligible. For instance, in Act 2, Scene 1 of “Othello,” Iago references a moment earlier in the scene where Cassio kisses the hand of Othello’s wife, Desdemona, but this act is not necessarily explicitly stated in the stage directions, so anyone with an alternate edition who has not consulted the SparkNotes beforehand has no clue what Iago is talking about.
Another barrier to the understanding of Shakespeare as a written text is the writing itself. We are all familiar with Shakespeare’s flowery language, which gives even the best readers a headache. Of course, some editions of Shakespeare’s plays include an abundance of handy footnotes which can somewhat help understanding, but I would argue that any text that requires a footnote to explain every third line is not an effective read. This, again, stresses the importance of performing these plays: a good actor can help an audience make sense of whatever 16th-century babble their character is saying.
I do not think that Shakespeare has no place in academia. There is a reason his plays are studied, and I think everyone should experience them – but a literature class is not necessarily the best place to do so.
Learning about Shakespeare’s plays in a performance setting, like a drama class, would significantly enhance the experience. With that being said, I do not think Shakespeare can’t be taught in a literature classroom. A class focused specifically on his work would be effective – more effective than shoehorning them in with everything else the class is reading. Not only does this give Shakespeare’s works room to breathe, but it also opens up literature classrooms to teach the neglected works of other writers of Shakespeare’s day.
However, learning Shakespeare in a literature class is not all bad. If the reference to “Othello” did not make it obvious, I recently finished studying that text in my literature class. Although I didn’t enjoy the experience – I am writing this article, after all – I cannot say I hated it. My literature professor did a good job in the face of our lack of enthusiasm, and when a professor brings energy, it is only right to give energy back. Unfortunately, many of my peers did not give that energy back – not that I blame them; Shakespeare is not a fun read. In my experience, that lack of energy can kill the lesson plan of an unprepared professor, which it so often does.
Being unprepared to teach Shakespeare isn’t the biggest problem in the world, but there is something wrong with wasting students’ time. If a professor’s strengths lie in areas that are not Shakespeare, why waste students’ energy on a text that would only be half-taught?
The picture our literature classes paint of Shakespeare’s work is far more negative than it has to be. Studying Shakespeare in this setting is a slog, and I cannot say I’m looking forward to the next time I have to study one of his texts. As such, Shakespeare’s work should be studied in drama classes and classes geared specifically towards him. The insights of literature professors are often wasted on Shakespeare’s work, especially in a setting where many students, myself included, do not care.
