Introducing Shakespeare (the literature not the dog)

There are two long held notions of education that I have spent years planning for, excitedly waiting for the day my kids were old enough to understand and enjoy them. They are writing and history. In my estimation, these two are best taught through literature and art. To be a writer is to be a reader. It's reading everything: the quality, the fluff, the comedic, the academic, the mundane, and the terrible. To know how to write effectively is to to see how it's been done. As for history, I've never been a fan of tossing a student a textbook and expecting rote memorization of facts. History is the study of culture; the way a society functions: the lives that took time to record why they lived, how they lived, how they rejoiced when victorious, and how they coped when death was preferable. Art and the written word are what is left long after a culture has ceased to exist, not something to just look at without considering the life that brought them into being.

For the last couple of years, I have casually handed Evelynn the books that thrilled my soul as a girl. She has, many times, flippantly handed them back informing me that "No one talks that way any more and no one behaves that way either." I have dejectedly put away my Montgomery and Alcott (because let's face it, she wouldn't even touch Austen at this point) and let her go off with the fairies into the lands of dragons, fantasy, and mythology, only slightly mollified when I have been able to slip in some C.S. Lewis and Tolkien. I knew there would be a day when I would figure out a way to introduce the classics to my voracious reader and to my younger, less well read, children.

After being advised to read How to Teach Your Children Shakespeare, I dove into  it and immediately felt Ken Ludwig was "of the race of Joseph" (see http://www.heiressintraining.com/2009/08/08/the-race-that-knows-joseph/ if you don't know what this means-- because literature). In chapter two, Mr. Ludwig spends time discussing what Shakespeare should be learned. Not only is it the foundation of writing patterns for most every modern piece of writing, it is (and this is where I felt that race of Joseph thing) "to expose them [children] to literature of such depth and worth that it would inspire them to want to achieve great things as they marched forward into maturity. I [Mr. Ludwig] have staked my life as a writer on the proposition that the arts make a difference in how we see the world and how we conduct our lives- how we view charity to our neighbors and justice to our communities- and Shakespeare, as the greatest artist in the history of our civilization, has worlds to teach us as long as we have the tools to understand him." 

We've been back to school a few weeks now and I added Shakespeare to our curriculum with mixed results. The first passage to learn  was the from the play A Midsummer Night's Dream. In this section, Oberon, king of the fairies has had a marital spat with his wife, Titania, queen of the fairies, and he is telling Puck, a mischievous sprite, how he plans to get his revenge on Titania. 

I know a bank where the wild thyme blows

Where oxlips and the nodding violet grows.

Quite over canopied with luscious woodbine,

With sweet musk roses and with eglantine.

There sleeps Titania sometime of the night,

Lulled in these flowers with dances and delight.

And there the snake throws were enameled skin,

Weed wide enough to wrap a fairy in.

And with the juice of this I'll streak her eyes

And make her full of hateful fantasies.

We started out learning the first line, but it was obvious that not knowing the entire story was a hindrance to them in understanding what was happening. The Usborne Complete Shakespeare: Stories From all the Plays is an excellent resource. It tells the story, not in script form, in a way that is understandable. The girls were entertained, and were more interested in the lines once they got a handle on what the story was about and who the characters were. The memorization of the lines was where things got spotty. How to Teach Your Children Shakespeare has a fabulous website (http://www.howtoteachyourchildrenshakespeare.com ) that has audio clips of the passages by Sir Derek Jacobi, Richard Clifford, and Frances Barber. Listening to the passage the way it's to be heard and said makes the learning of it complete. Evelynn got the lines down, but they came out in that rushed, monotonous way that denotes boredom and acute disinterest-- like the kid is eleven and can't be bothered. Shocking, I know. Caelan was brilliant. Listening to her and watching the physical complements to her recitation was like watching a conductor and his symphony. Her tones dipped and peaked, and her favorite line is "And with the juice of this I'll streak her eyes." She means every word of it and it's downright creepy. McKenna is somewhere in the middle. She's neither blasé in her performance, nor is she as flamboyant as Caelan. She didn't seem as entertained by the lines and when I read the story, she wasn't as amused as her sisters. The only thing she said about the entire Shakespearian episode was about a character named Nick Bottom, an amateur actor that was conscripted for a play that was to be performed at the wedding of Theseus, the duke of Athens, and the Queen of the Amazons. This Nick Bottom seems to be the village idiot, but that's not what made McKenna react to anything we had read or learned up to that point. It was his name. She interrupted my narrative with "Wait... did you say Nick Bottom? No. I can't do this. I can't sit here and listen to a story where one guy's name is Nick Bottom. Can we just call him Max?"

It's a stellar beginning. I refuse to re-shelve Shakespeare. They may wish I had stuck with Montgomery and Alcott.