Imagining Reality: Hamlet

The central reason for Shakespeare’s continued appeal over the last four centuries is his ability to depict reality, to give a true portrait of the real universe we inhabit. In particular, Shakespeare gives us insight into the human condition. It is important to note that Shakespeare’s portrayal of reality is not banal like so-called “reality” TV---dull, predictable, meaningless and crass. Rather, Shakespeare's portrayal of reality is rich, textured and at times, sharply perceptive and deeply painful. This portrayal of reality is often lost by modern audiences because of the poetic depiction. Indeed, I have never met three, bearded witches in the Scottish highlands nor have I been caught in the midst of a bloody family feud in fair Verona. But poetry is often a better venue for communicating the intangible realities of life in this universe.

Such is the case for prisoners at the Missouri Eastern Correctional Center. For the prisoners, the reality of Hamlet was both remarkably real in a literal sense and poetic sense. Recently, my brother sent me an article by Jill Carattini (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries) where she cites a performance of Hamlet, which was performed at this correctional facility (1):

“…For a group of prisoners at the Missouri Eastern Correctional Center, Hamlet, both the man and the play, hit disruptively home. Over the course of six months, a prison performing arts program gave a handful of criminals, who are living out the consequences of their violent crimes, the chance to delve into a story about a man pondering a violent crime and its consequences. The result was a startling encounter for both the players, most of whom were new to Shakespeare, and the instructors, who long thought they knew every angle to Shakespeare’s tale, but came to see how much they had missed. One man, in order to play the character Laertes, found himself reckoning with the temptation to manipulate as a means of getting what you want, only to realize a kind of cowardice in such actions. In a moment of clarity through the life of another, he admits, ‘I can identify with that [struggle] and I can play that role very well—because I’ve been playing that role my whole life....To put a gun in somebody’s face—that’s an unfair advantage. That’s a cowardly act. And that’s what criminals are; we’re cowards.’ He then admits with striking transparency, ‘I am Laertes. I am. I am.’”

What struck me most powerfully about this story is how a “fictional character” impressed upon the convict’s heart the true nature of his actions and his crimes… All the legal statements and court proceedings, media articles, victim impact statements---even a cold, hard prison cell---failed to show him the deep, cowardly reality of his crime. It took a story, a four hundred year old story, to awaken his soul and his mind to reality.

This event reminded me of the prophet Nathan when he told a story to David. It was a parable that David took literally; David's reaction was outrage and cries for justice, until Nathan said, “You are the man!” (2 Samuel 12). David failed to see the wickedness of his adultery and his scheme of murder until confronted with a story. Even in Hamlet, the pensive prince uses drama to elicit the guilt of the murderous brother Claudius: “the play’s the thing / Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King.” (II.ii). Claudius couldn’t help but react when confronted with the reality of his crimes through imaginative storytelling.

This is why God created humanity with an imagination---not to waste on wishful thinking or empty dreaming---but to gain a clearer picture of reality. Carattini continues in her article to comment on Jesus’ use of story. She writes, “Jesus places us beside images of a kingdom that turns things around, stories that shock and offend us, metaphors that wake us to the presence of a surprising God, to the mindsets and pieties that block us from seeing this God, and to the abundance of divine grace that beckons us to look again and again.” May you exercise your imagination when you read Shakespeare and when you read the Scriptures. Awaken your mind to the poetry, the imagery, not for art’s sake but for Christ’s. Don’t forget to imagine.

(1) As heard on This American Life with Ira Glass, 218: Act V, October 12, 2007.

At the Kilns: Letters to an American Lady, grading papers and rediscovering Horatio

One of the things I have learned while reading C.S. Lewis is that grading papers is always a burden, no matter how much of a genius or master teacher one is. Perhaps, it is more of a burden for those who are geniuses and master teachers…

This point became clear after reading a short little book called Letters to an American Lady. It is a collection of letters C.S. Lewis wrote to an American woman over the course of a decade. She wrote to Lewis---at times incessantly---and Lewis responded faithfully to almost every single letter she wrote to him. During the course of years, academic terms and increasing illness on both their parts, Lewis recounts the demands on his time. Most prominent is grading papers.

I was encouraged, not by the fact that Lewis felt burdened by grading, but that I was not the only one who seemed to be feeling the pangs of poorly written prose. There is no easy way out of marking. It simply has to be waded through. During each stint of examinations, Lewis faithful trudged on despite his time being far more precious and valuable than mine. The other encouraging thing for me is that since Lewis inevitably finishes grading and is able to move on to other things he enjoys, so can I.

All this being said, I recently read a student essay that brought me some delight. I am currently wading through 80 essays on Hamlet… and I have encountered the usual themes of death, revenge and death-resulting-from-revenge and death-resulting-in-revenge sort of essays… This essay stood out because it focused on Horatio. My student writes, “readers have a tendency to direct much of their energy towards the main characters. However, secondary characters in a work should never be overlooked…” True enough. He goes on to write, “In a play full of deception, betrayal, revenge and strong passion, it is very important for the audience to be able to rely on a voice of reason and truth.” Very true. He continues, “In Hamlet, Horatio is this truth teller; he is an observer of action and a commentator. Horatio is the one character in the play who can be trusted not only by Hamlet but by the audience.” I was gripped. In teaching Hamlet, I address Horatio’s importance only in relation to how he functions in advancing the plot shedding certain light on Hamlet. I had never really considered Horatio for Horatio’s sake. When all other human beings in the play betray all forms of human relationships, Horatio is the steadfast and faithful one. He is the hope that remains after Pandora’s Box is opened and a torrent of death and mayhem are unleashed in the closing scene of the play.

Anyway, it was great to read something inspiring. Although it is making the rest of my marking more challenging. Revenge and death, death and revenge. Oh, the carnage of words, paper and Shakespeare. As I tread through the battlefields of intellectual promise and academic potential, I long for a truth teller, someone who can be trusted… I need another dose of Horatio.

Teaching Shakespeare as Literature

Shakespeare originally wrote his plays to be performed before a mostly uneducated and illiterate audience. Writing plays was Shakespeare’s “job”---he earned a modest living from writing and producing plays. He was not writing for “art’s sake” but for “food’s sake”. The old adage, “necessity is the father of invention” is particularly true in Shakespeare’s case. The point here is that Shakespeare’s plays were written to be performed on stage. Most of his plays did not appear in print until well after his death. For this reason, many gurus of education are arguing for a performance-based approach to teaching Shakespeare. If the plays were written for the stage, then they should be taught on a “stage”.

Peggy O’Brien from the Folger Library (one of the largest and most significant Shakespeare research centre in the world) writes, “Performing a Shakespearean scene or scenes is the single most important part of a student’s Shakespeare education. Period.” She may be right, but there is too much pressure on educators to use Shakespeare primarily as a drama unit rather than literature unit. The dramatic aspect of Shakespeare lends itself well to a performance-based approach. However, his plays run deep, much deeper than the average audience-goer would understand. This is the reason why Shakespeare can be, and should be, taught as literature. A student’s exposure to Shakespeare needs to be more than simply “working towards performance”.

Had Shakespeare been writing three hundred years later than his own time in history, he may have chosen to write novels as opposed to plays. His characters have a psychological complexity and depth that surpass most theatrical characters in Elizabethan drama; some of his characters are unsurpassed by present-day drama. Essentially, Shakespeare wrote his plays “deeper” than required for successful stage performance. In fact, I argue that some of Shakespeare’s plays “read” better than they are “performed”. So much of the “drama” in the play Macbeth, for example, is so internal and psychological that I have rarely watched a great on-stage performance of it (no fault to the performers or directors). It is a play, I believe, that is better read than watched. In some ways, Shakespeare is like a novelist trapped in a playwright’s body.

That being said, Shakespeare still works well on stage. The plays were as popular in Elizabethan England (for the most part) as they are now (if not more so). However, I find that my enjoyment of “Shakespeare performed” is different from “Shakespeare read”. Sometimes, my enjoyment of Shakespeare performed is, in part, due to the fact that I have read the play beforehand. As educators, it is important that we expose our students to both performance enjoyment and the enjoyment of a close reading. Why did Shakespeare include so much symbolism and metaphor in his plays, when so much of it would be lost on his audiences? Perhaps there is a bit of “art for art’s sake” in Shakespeare after all.

Three Days with the Bard

This week I was in Stratford (Ontario) attending a teacher conference at the Shakespeare Festival. The Stratford Shakespeare Festival is considered by theatre aficionados as North America’s premiere classical theatre. But, as they say, familiarity breeds contempt. While I was a student at the University of Western Ontario in London (ON), I took full advantage of the student rate ($20 at the time), and I saw numerous plays at the Festival. Now as a teacher, I catch a play or two every year with my students. I began to take the theatre for granted. I live and work next door to Stratford. This attitude of ingratitude, however, has changed this week for two reasons.

The first reason was the opportunity I had to work with teachers who came from places as far as Rochester NY, North Bay and New Brunswick! These teachers were thrilled to be in Stratford. I saw Stratford through their eyes. Would I drive six or eight hours to catch a Stratford play? Would I fly from New Brunswick? A different perspective on what you “have” makes all the difference.

The second reason was the fact that I really enjoyed the shows I watched this week. Part of the Teachers’ Conference included complimentary tickets to three Shakespearean plays. I also had the opportunity to workshop with some of the actors from the plays, most notably, Adrienne Gould, who plays Ophelia in Hamlet. The plays I saw were Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet and Taming of the Shrew. The best of the plays was Hamlet.

I have watched Hamlet on stage a few times, once previously at Stratford (starring Paul Gross in 2000). This particular stage production of Hamlet was great. Award winning Canadian actor Ben Carlson shines as Hamlet. Gould’s Ophelia is also the best I have seen on stage. I thoroughly enjoyed the performance. I was more than awake; I was engaged. Admittedly, there are odd bits in the production. One strange set piece is a gigantic pool table that miraculously appears after a blackout on stage. It is humongous. What made this especially odd is the fact that this huge table had little purpose. In the Kenneth Branagh film version of Hamlet (1996), there is also a pool table (I think?) in the identical scene. Claudius is---symbolically---a “pool shark”. He manipulates the situation, lures Laertes into his schemes and creates the ultimate set up. The symbol works well in the movie. On stage, the table is simply a colossal distraction---albeit a dazzlingly magnificent piece of furniture. The point is, the actors and the scene are lost behind the gorgeous oak pool table. Another reason making the table odd on-stage was the fact that Laertes, who just tragically lost both his father and his sister, and who almost raised a revolution in Denmark and nearly committed regicide, is in the next scene, playing snooker… In Branagh’s film it seems to work. Claudius is manipulating Laertes, distracting him from his rage. On stage, I couldn’t help but wonder how much that table cost, how did they get it on stage so fast and what are they going to do with it after the show is over?

There was also a piano on stage during the whole production. Although used cleverly throughout the performance, I found it a distraction as well. However, not enough of a distraction to cause me to miss Carlson’s Hamlet. He truly embodied Shakespeare’s most celebrated tragic hero. It was a risky manoeuvre, but Carlson’s and Gould’s performances redeem the show of all its flaws.
So, I appreciate Stratford a little more these days. I am looking forward to bringing my 90 Grade 12 English students to Stratford in order to see Hamlet. I feel confident this performance will not turn my students off the bard. It may do just the opposite. If you are in the neighbourhood, take advantage of Stratford’s Shakespeare Festival.

Shakespeare: The Gifted Observer

This Sunday night, I will present Session 3 in the series, “The Christian and Literature.” Sunday's message is “Shakespeare: The Gifted Observer.” The value of Shakespeare for the Christian is Shakespeare’s application of a decidedly Christian worldview in his plays.

Whether he was a Christian or not is unclear. Some scholars argue that Shakespeare was a Puritan, and others suggest he was Anglican; some put forward the idea he was Catholic while others further propose he was an unbeliever. The mystery about Shakespeare’s personal spirituality remains a mystery simply because we know very little about the man behind the works.

My case this Sunday night will not be the spirituality of Shakespeare, but the spirituality of his works. George Macdonald writes, “Truth is truth, whether it's spoken by the lips of Jesus or Balaam's donkey.” It doesn’t matter---per se---if he was a Christian or not; what Shakespeare shows us is truth. He is a keen observer of God’s creation, in particular, the human being. We have much to learn from his insights into the human experience. The events in his plays unfold in a world baptised by the Christian imagination, taking place in a universe ruled by a Sovereign God.

At the core of Shakespeare’s writing is the Bible. Out of the 66 books of the Bible books, Shakespeare quoted 57. Shakespeare also presents countless Christian themes in his plays as well as biblical allusions.

Christians should pay attention to Shakespeare, not only as the greatest English-speaking writer in Western literature, but also as the Gifted Observer of God’s world.

Bad parenting in Hamlet

Reason #2 why I like Hamlet: the plethora of bad parenting role models

1) Disinterested parenting: mom & dad preoccupied with careers and social status

Hamlet is the crown prince and his parents should have been prompting him and encouraging him toward his royal fulfillment. But, they were not. Instead, Hamlet’s father was engaged in expansion projects and cementing his own legacy as king of Denmark, a legacy that is forgotten soon after his untimely death. Gertrude seems equally disconnected from her son. It seems she is all but unaware of Hamlet’s relationship with Ophelia, even though the relationship was known to others (cp. Polonius and Laertes). She also fails to understand the true source of Hamlet’s malcontent at the outset of the play. Hamlet, we discover in his first soliloquy in Act I, is distraught not merely by the death of his father, but by the hasty remarriage of his mother to his uncle. Indeed, Gertrude’s hasty remarriage to the king’s brother indicates that she was preoccupied with maintaining her own political situation. Parenting lesson #1: stay connected with your kids and encourage them to fulfill their calling in life.

2) Reliving your youth (or life, if you are a ghost) through your kids

The ghost of Hamlet’s father manipulates his son in order to carry out revenge on Claudius, his murderer. However, the ghost’s promptings toward vengeance are not substantiated with evidence. Had Hamlet actually carried out a revenge killing as his vaporous father demands, he would have been arrested and executed for treason and regicide. Hamlet had no evidence of Claudius’s guilt other than the “word” of an apparition. Even OJ couldn’t get away with murder using that excuse. Parenting lesson # 2: don’t try to live your dreams and do all the stuff you didn’t do in your life through your kids.

3) Spying on the children

The motif of spying is another aspect in this play which underscores the failure of parents. Polonius engages a spy to observe his son’s behaviour in Paris; he also uses his own daughter to spy on Hamlet. Gertrude and Claudius persuade Hamlet’s friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to spy on their friend. In contrast, I am reminded of the Apostle Paul’s phrase in 1 Corinthians: “Love always trusts.” It is one thing to “check on the kids”; it is another thing to set up surveillance cameras. Parenting lesson # 3: love your kids by trusting your kids.

4) Giving corny advice and not practicing what you preach

Polonius, who is perhaps the worst father in literature, is a wind bag. Being a wind bag does not necessarily make someone a bad parent. However, before he sends his son off to university, Polonius accosts Laertes with a litany of aphorisms---pithy pre-fab quotes and cliches. Out of context, he disjointedly rattles off no less than twelve “tips for life”---things like, “Give thy thoughts no tongue, Nor any unproportioned thought his act” or “Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar” or “Neither a borrower nor a lender be” or “to thine ownself be true”. All these quotes are good advice. However, the absence of sincerity along with the lack of personalized advice earns Polonius the worst father in literature. He doesn't really know his son. Laertes is wise and insightful, and is no doubt living this advice already. Polonius, however, often gives his thoughts to his tongue and many unproportioned thoughts to action. Parenting lesson #4: give advice that actually applies to your kid’s life, and, the best advice to give is the advice that is already lived out in the giver.

Parenting, Hamlet and the Real World

Parents often limit their child’s perception of the world; they shelter their kids from the evils and disappointments of the real world. By degree, as the children age, parents introduce the children to the real world. I agree with this. My wife and I limit the stream of media to our home; we have no cable or TV channels. We moderate radio news and I usually leave the newspaper at work.

Don’t get me wrong; my kids are not living in isolation bubbles. My oldest son understands that the world can be an evil place, and there are people who do evil things. However, I make every attempt to immerse my children in goodness. We celebrate the good deeds of fellow mankind---the achievements, the sacrifices and heroism. We enjoy the good things in the world.

The point we are trying to make is that the real world is not as it should be; it is a place full of darkness and sadness and unimaginable evil. In truth, the world ought to be a place full of light, joy and goodness unending. Someday, when Christ returns, it will be.

Nevertheless, we do not live in such a renewed and perfect world yet. Consequently, children need to “grow up” and see the world as it is. When children, or anyone for that matter, move from the world of idealistic innocence to real knowledge, it is a difficult shift. This often occurs in early adolescence. This shift is difficult not because parents have sheltered their kids too much; it is difficult because human beings were created for a good world. We all long for Eden. We are uncomfortable with change because we long for the Unchangeable One. We never fully understand death because we were not meant to die.

These are the issues that face the protagonist in William Shakespeare’s great tragedy, Hamlet. Before the play begins, Hamlet is portrayed as a “young” man (there is some discrepancy in the text as to how young he really is…), who has been living the life of a carefree hedonist. In many ways, he was sheltered from reality by blissful ignorance. As the crown prince, he should have been preparing to take over the state of Denmark. Instead, he was a playboy: he was partying with his friends at university, dating a girl he was not supposed to be dating, and behaving with complete disinterest in state affairs.

As an idealist, Hamlet believed in friendship, he believed in love, both erotic and filial, and he believed in the unending, unchanging pleasures of youth and the happiness of this world. As the play unfolds, each of his relationships falls apart, beginning with the untimely death of his father. Hamlet’s idealism comes crashing down along with all the relationships he held dear.

Throughout the play, Hamlet describes his father as a lion of a man who would, it seems, always be with him. The impression one gets is that Hamlet had not even considered assuming the role as king. Like most youth who lose a parent, the death of his father had not occurred to him as an immediate possibility. Abandoned by his father, Hamlet then discovers that the matrimonial bliss of his parents was not as enduring as he perceived. His mother must not have truly loved his father because she remarried shortly after her husband’s death. In addition to abandoning her husband’s memory, she abandons Hamlet, by her attempt to gloss over the death of his father and downplay the revulsion of her hasty marriage. Notice also how the people of Denmark accept the new king and the hasty marriage. So much for loyalty. Once the old king dies, the people move on to the next regent without hesitation or discretion. This fickle sense of loyalty is demonstrated again when an angry mob, rallied by Laertes, turns on Claudius and declares Laertes as king.

Hamlet’s uncle also usurps the crown from him and, as Hamlet discovers, Claudius murdered his father to get the throne. What about love between brothers, between family? So much for family love. His friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, turn out to be spies for the kings; they choose a financial reward over duty to their friend. Hamlet is betrayed in friendship. Hamlet’s love for Ophelia is also shaken; she too is used as a spy for the king. For Hamlet, all that he thought was good and true was in fact, all false. He even doubts himself.

What then does it mean to be a human being? Devotion to family? Friends? Love? One’s country? One’s self? Hamlet is betrayed by it all.

The truth that Hamlet discovers is that the world is not perfect. What he fails to see is the remnant of good still in the world. What about Horatio? Was he not a true friend? What about Laertes’s unwavering love for his father and his sister? What about Gertrude’s “repentance” during Hamlet’s curt and forceful chastisement in Act III? What about Ophelia’s heart rendering regret for betraying her true love? What about Fortinbras’s devotion to his country? What about Laertes’s deathbed repentance for being used by the king? There is still light in the world.

As parents, we need to ensure our children yearn for what is good while learning that the world is inhabited by sin. We need to help our children to remain idealistic without becoming disillusioned by the harsh realities of the world. As the old saying goes, “We need to prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child.” We do this not by throwing our kids out onto the road and bidding them fare well. Instead, we teach them to love the goal of life’s journey at the end of the road, while gently and gradually revealing the challenges (and rewards) of the road itself.

Ultimately, the only true antidote to the unpleasant and disappointing transition from innocence to reality is the hope of the gospel.

To Post or Not to Post...

That is the question...

I am currently teaching Hamlet right now to my Grade 12 English students (hence the "to be or not to be" motif here...).

Hamlet's chief tragic flaw is his inability to "act"... Similarly, I am unable to blog. To blog or not to blog... However, I was sufficiently prodded by Barb (and perhaps, The Bard).

Hamlet is, by far, the greatest Shakespearean play. The line, "To be or not to be" is the most quoted phrase in English language. The play has been performed more than any other play in the world. It has been translated more than any other play and "it has inspired twenty-six ballets, six operas, and dozens of musical works" ("Hamletology" by Norrie Epstein).

In this most remarkable play, Hamlet ponders the quintessential question for humanity: "What is man?" or, "What is the meaning of life?" In the next blog post, I will share Hamlet's musings on the subject.

Shakespeare the Pirate and Pirating Shakespeare...

Shakespeare the Pirate and Pirating Shakespeare…

Out of all of the Bard’s plays, only one is “original.” The original play is A Midsummer's Night Dream. All the other plays—tragedies, comedies and histories—are based on various “sources”. In other words, Shakespeare copied other people’s work. He was a pirate of sorts. Today, we copyright intellectual property. That is why Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown is in court for plagiarizing Holy Blood, Holy Grail. You cannot copy someone else’s idea and publish a best seller. Yann Martel, author of the best seller Life of Pi, a novel about a tiger in a boat with a boy, was also accused of plagiarizing Brazilian author Moacyr Scliar’s novel—which is also about a tiger in a boat with a boy.

Whatever you think of Dan Brown’s writing and whether he plagiarized or not, Shakespeare clearly did. But so did everyone else writing in his day. Authors understood that creativity does not occur in a vacuum. They recognized that their craft depends on the craft of others who have gone before them. Only God creates Ex Nihilo. All artists have, in the end, copy God's creativity. Consequently, all writers have sources. Even C.S. Lewis's The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was inspired by Roger Lancelyn Green's never published, "The Wood that Time Forgot", about children entering an enchanted wood and encountering a fallen angel. He was also inspired by the works of George Macdonald and J.R.R. Tolkien. There are many similarities and common threads in Lewis's Narnia books that can be clearly linked to Lewis's sources.

Building off of other's ideas is not a sign of an author's lack of ability as a writer. In fact, it confirms his ability. We celebrate Shakespeare’s version of Romeo and Juliet, not Matteo Bandello’s novella Giulietta e Romeo (1554), or William Painter’s The Palace of Pleasure(1580) or the poem by Arthur Brooke called "The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Iuliet", written in 1562. Shakespeare took these stories and he added breadth and depth of human experience. He changed events, developed characters and enriched the stories with his observations of the human condition. Shakespeare made his sources into better stories that have endured.

Additional confirmation of Shakespeare’s success is the amount of works that have "plagiarized" Shakespeare. Shakespeare's plays have inspired countless creative endeavors—music, art, plays, novels, poems, films, TV shows, etc. Even in the 21st Century, Shakespeare permeates our popular culture. In addition, each year hundreds of Shakespeare plays are still being performed all over the world. What a playwright!

Why Study Shakespeare?

Why Shakespeare?

Teacher: Why do we study Shakespeare?

Student: We study Shakespeare because he is a famous writer.

Teacher: OK, but how did he get famous?

Student: He was a white guy who wrote famous stuff. In the olden days, we only celebrated dead white guys.

Teacher: There are plenty of dead white males who wrote pretty decent stuff… Could it be that Shakespeare is famous because his works exceeded the works of others? Could it be that Shakespeare captured something unique in his writing? Could it be that Shakespeare’s works communicate something of great importance, which is still relevant for today?

Student: Can I go to the bathroom?

The question—why study Shakespeare—is an important one that teachers need to ask each time they teach Shakespeare. I always begin my study of a play with this question. With my students, I argue for two main reasons. At the heart of it, I believe Shakespeare is a unique writer who captures the human experience in—ironically—the most accessible way like no other English writer. Shakespeare’s characters are diverse, three-dimensional, and authentic; they reveal a broad and deep picture of humanity. Dickens creates caricatures of humanity, Austen creates miniature portraits of humanity but Shakespeare creates an almost God’s-eye-view of humanity. He puts the world on display in all its beauty and ugliness.

I call Shakespeare “accessible” because it is a play that was meant to appeal to a diverse audience. Shakespeare works as a “show and tell” of the human experience.

The second reason I argue for Shakespeare is for cultural literacy, to borrow E.D. Hirch’s phrase. Shakespeare’s works permeate our culture so exhaustively that we are doing our students—I suggest—a disservice by not giving them the context of our current culture. From words and phrases, idioms and clichés, to films, music and art, Shakespeare is present.

The problem in our current culture is that we celebrate “fame” as an achievement. There are many famous actors and musicians who are neither unique nor do they excel in their craft. Then, these famous people get behind a “cause” that they know very little about and they have not demonstrated any merit other then being famous. Case in point is the great Canadian seal hunt controversy. Among the people who oppose the controversy are famous actors and musicians. Among those who support the seal hunt are ecologists, academics and some lesser known celebs from intelligencia acclaim. No debate should be determined by a “who’s who” list. That’s just stupid propaganda. If I was accused of a crime I did not commit and I was on trial, facing the death penalty, then I would want an expert in the field of law to represent me. I would not want an actor, even if he or she played a lawyer on TV or the silver screen. It is no wonder students are cynical when it comes to “famous” writers. We must remind them that in the “olden days” people often achieved fame because they actually merited it.

Shakespeare in the 21st Century?

Shakespeare in the 21st Century?

Every educator must ask themselves this question: How am I meeting the practical needs of my students in the 21st century, particularly students who are disadvantaged intellectually, socially, economically, etc.?

There is a movement afoot in North American Education that answers this question with resume writing skills and language training; these are important skills, no doubt.

However, resumes do not inspire students. Literature does. Even… nay, especially Shakespeare. The value of Shakespeare is that it transcends time and place and meets us on the level plain of our humanity—we have all loved (like Romeo), felt pain and pondered our mortality (like Hamlet), succumbed to temptation (like Macbeth), been blinded by jealousy (like Othello).

Educators ought to give all their students the opportunity to experience the wonder and beauty of literature. I have worked with essential level students and they often perceive themselves as “second class citizens” intellectually. By demystifying the supposed “elitist” literature like Shakespeare, students are empowered. They CAN read Shakespeare, they CAN understand Shakespeare, they CAN recite Shakespeare.

The beauty of English is that we teach with stories. The narrative should drive the class. The students’ desire to know what happens next in the story motivates them to learn and keep learning.

A student will ask, “What does Shakespeare have to do with me?” I believe it gives us hope of something better. It gives us an understanding of who we are as human beings; it gives us a glimpse of a world that is bigger than the world we think we know.

This sounds pretty idealistic, but I believe it is true. I taught Essential Level English students at a vocational school and now I teach Academic students at a private school. I find that students from both ends of the academic spectrum love to be inspired and empowered. I believe that teaching good literature is at the heart of it. For the Essential level students I also taught them how to write resumes, food service menus, how to use a phone book. The Academic students learn how to write essays and critical arguments. But more importantly, they learn why resumes and essays matter—they matter because life matters. This central purpose of English teaching does not change. What I mean by “life matters” is not simply the mundane aspects of life. I mean the spiritual, mind-enriching and soul-searching aspects of life. I believe literature helps my students see beauty in their lives. If they can see this beauty, then they will also begin to see the God of beauty Himself.

Classics & the "Weak" Student

Classics & the "Weak" Student

Should we be teaching Shakespeare and other “classics” to Academically weak students? Literature that is well chosen should communicate the fundamentally human experience that exceeds a particular time period and goes beyond a specific culture—including the academic culture. If this is true of Shakespeare, then we must teach Shakespeare to high achievers as well as academically weak students. The approach may differ, but the content is the same—the human experience.

What makes a “classic” a “classic”? The answer, I believe, is three-fold. A classic is a work that was written in a particular time and place by a particular person but has risen beyond its cultural context to apply to humans in any time and place. A classic also needs to have influence on subsequent literature and cultures. Lastly, a classic is a work that reflects the beauty and excellence of human creative ability; in other words, it is well written. I think students need to be exposed to works other than “classics”, but I believe that the cornerstone of an English program needs to be classic literature.

Too many students are disinterested in literature because much of what they have encountered has been blasé or mediocre. As a teacher of Creative Writing, I believe it is essential that students distinguish “good” literature so they are able to write their own. Great Canadian writers Timothy Findley, Margaret Laurence, Robertson Davies, Carol Shields et al were all prolific readers and they all had countless “classics” under their belt. Without an excellent goal to aim for (or surpass) how can we expect our students to excel beyond mediocrity?