Re: The Demonization of Shakespeare

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 12:31:10 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:

Paul S Person  <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

<snippo Shakespeare examples of what the alt-right calls "woke">
<I should note that is has always been my understanding (probably from
something I was told or read) that Romeo and Juliet would have been
about 13, but who can say for sure?>

>
Yes, precisely.  That is probably too young to be making out in the bartizan
but that's how kids are.  Romeo and Juliet are just two normal kids in a
bad situation.

A situation where most of the "adults" are teenagers as well.

Having an operatic diva sing Juliet is intrinsically hilarious. The
very concept is ROFL level. Or should be.

Of course, part of the problem is the insistence (well, back in the
60's it was) of the teachers on expressing their personal liking for
the books instead of taking a more objective approach, making any
comments less than adulatory unwelcome. Why bother to engage with a
book when the teacher has already told you how you must feel about it?

>
I don't know, I always argued with teachers about what to like and not to
like.  Mind you, I didn't get very good grades as a child.  But yes, I think
a lot of school is there to introduce children to as many things as
possible and to explain them in context as well as one can.

An agreed list of good books to read and not-so-good books to avoid
(guess which the kids will read?) is one thing. Being so insistent on
the extreme goodness of a book that no child would dare hold, never
mind express, a different opinion is something else.

And, yes, context is very important. But the teacher's personal
enthusiasm is not "context"; "context" is what the book or play meant
at the time it was written.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"