Shakespeare was the network channels of his time.

I know he's amazing, but when, in many schools he gets taught every year while playwrights like Caryl Churchill go completely unrecognized I think there's an imbalance.

In many ways he was pop culture for his time. In context, being a groundling at a theatre was cheap entertainment. Most people couldn't read, and TV didn't exist, so it was church or theatre.

You could probably say the same for Aristophanes. I think the pop culture/high culture divide is a fairly modern invention, and anything that survives a century or two in our culture gets shoved into the former, no matter what the original audience and intent might have been.

In many ways he was pop culture for his time. In context, being a groundling at a theatre was cheap entertainment

Oh, completely! He did comedy, farce, Lawe and Ye Olde Order, emodrama...

In many ways he was pop culture for his time. In context, being a groundling at a theatre was cheap entertainment. Most people couldn't read, and TV didn't exist, so it was church or theatre.

Heh. Elizabethan church often was theatre, depending on the priest.

Heh. Elizabethan church often was theatre, depending on the priest.

Actually it didn't even depend on the priest, it was entrenched into the structure of the church at the time. Morality plays came out of this structure. Services were in Latin which most people did not speak, so there were dramatic presentations to teach people. It was the whole idea of "teach and please" that went on. Make it fun to watch and people will learn from it.

Oh, fuck! I forgot all about the Greeks! How could I forget the fucking Greeks! Yes, I completely agree with you about Aristophenes, and where would old Freud and most early 19th century writers of all ilk be with Sophocles?

Erin, that's why I wish I had the time and money to get a second Masters in lit.

Pix, I've said it many times: my MA in English was SOOOOOOOOO much better and intensive than my MA in Education, it is not even funny. And I find pedogogy fiarly interesting.

But no one in college expects a student to have read Carly Churchill. The longer I've taught, the more I've realized that high school is about giving the students a foundation that can then be built on in college. Believe me, there are plenty of 20th century authors, not just playwrights, that I feel were very influential and are undertaught, but in the end I have to do what is best for my students. I would hope that if they took a class about 20th century lit or plays in college, they would get Churchill. I try to expose them to a variety of work and push them outside the normal box, but they also need to know the classics, even if those classics are only perceived as being so important. (I would argue that Shakespeare is that important.)

And in Italy, wasn't opera for everyone?

Caryl Churchill I think would be pretty difficult to teach in a lit class setting (IIRC). I think that's more drama class stuff.

Though who knows, if playwrights like Churchill were discussed in mainstream classroom applications, then it would probably be much more accessible.

Perhaps my bias shows toward incorporating performance as the best way to analyze drama text, YMMV.

Yeah, my issues with what is taught continue into university.