[CLUE-Talk] Tolkien and allegory

[Dennis J Perkins]

>
>
>
>  
>
>>>I wish schools would start teaching literary devices at an early age to
>>>children, using popular shows and movies rather than musty books that 
>>>most kids will find terminally dull. You could do an entire lit class on
>>>"Buffy the Vampire Slayer" or "Star Wars" or any number of other works
>>>that would be far more accessible to younger kids. 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I think this argument could be made for a lot of school subjects.  I'm
>>not sure how well that would work for some subjects.  At what age do
>>most children start being able to think critically and analytically? 
>>This isn't a criticism, just a question because I don't know.
>>    
>>
>
>I'm not an expert on education or child development, so I can't answer
>that. It's my observation, though, that very little is done to teach
>children critical thinking skills until high school as preparation for
>college (I realize that's a gross generalization, and probably varies
>from school system to school system, but it's what I have observed in
>Missour and Colorado.) and I'm sure that children can be taught to think
>critically long before the school system actually begins to do so. 
>
>Frankly, I belive that critical thinking skills are much more important
>than any specific field of study and we should be doing more to foster
>those skills. But that's a whole 'nother discussion...  
>
I agree that students should be taught critical thinking.  I'm just not 
sure at what age they are ready and how much that depends on the student.

North Dakota didn't exactly emphasize critical thinking either, but I 
had an exceptional teacher in 6th grade.  He believed we should progress 
at our own speed and encouraged us to excel.  He had minimum 
requirements of course, but a few of us took advantage of this and 
learned.  Most didn't care, of course, and he made sure they did learn. 
 A few followed those of us who took off in math and science.  I was 
also lucky to get good teachers after that instead of the bad ones.

>
>  
>
>>>However, really good works of literature have more to them than just a
>>>good plot -- there's a reason why some works of literature and some
>>>movies and so forth have stood the test of time, whereas others have
>>>lost relevance with age. This is why Shakespeare's plays are still
>>>considered great works of art, while many of his contemporaries have 
>>>been forgotten. 
>>>      
>>>
>>We read six of his plays in school.  I didn't mind them, but personally,
>>I don't find them that compelling.  I haven't read works of his
>>contemporaries.  How did he stand out from them?
>>    
>>
>
>Did you read a mixture of the works, or mainly comedies or tragedies,
>or...? The only play we read in high school was "Romeo and Juliet" -- a
>play that was ruined for me by the trollish hack of a teacher that I had
>for that class. I am not a huge fan of Shakespeare, but I've gained quite
>a bit of respect for his work since high school after reading other
>plays on my own and seeing "Midsummer Night's Dream." I gained even more
>respect after being in a production of "Midsummer Night's Dream" that
>had been adapted slightly. 
>  
>
Julius Caesar, Romeo and Juliet, As You Like It, Taming of the Shrew, 
Midsummer Night's Dream.  I forget the last one.

>I think you might find Shakespeare's works more compelling now than when
>in school -- depending on what type of literature you find compelling,
>of course -- particularly works like King Richard III or Hamlet. Of
>course, it's often tempting to subject students to these plays because
>they are favorites of the instructor *and* they also give the ability
>for the instructor to discuss history and politics. 
>  
>
Actually, I find them more interesting if I don't read them in English. 
 I do find some of the words very interesting, however, but that is 
because of a linguistic background, not due to anything literary.

>I think Shakespeare stood out because his plays contained universal
>themes that stood the test of time, as well as excellent use of language
>and so forth.   
>
>  
>
>>I find it interesting that translations of his plays into French and
>>other languages use modern language instead of translating into the
>>French (o whatever) of that period.  Shakespeare's works might actually
>>be more comprehensible to them than to many of us.  Assuming the
>>translation is good and that some things are very difficult to
>>translate.
>>    
>>
>
>Ah, yeah. So many issues here. 
>  
>
Yep.  Translation introduces a lot of things.  Prose is usually fairly 
easy.  Puns, jokes and poetry are harder.  Sometimes the translater 
needs to replace an idea with something equivalent.  Some people would 
consider Jabberwocky untranslatable, but I have seen it done in 3 
languages and it worked.

>There are many good arguments for teaching Shakespeare in its original
>language, and many good arguments against it. 
>
>One problem with teaching Shakespeare is that it is often done by
>having students *read* a text that was meant to be performed. It's damn
>hard to enjoy Shakespeare (at least for me) by *reading* through the
>plays in their original form. But I find that listening to Shakespeare's
>works is quite enjoyable when performed well. (And agonizing when done
>poorly...) It's like reading Beowulf in the original language it wasn't
>*meant* to be read, it was meant to be recited and listened to. 
>
The only one I ever saw performed was Taming of the Shrew, and it was 
modernized somewhat.  The modernization actually helped because it was 
well done.