In an ideal world, high school would teach the foundations of Western thought that inform so much literature. There were many years when the only books a family would have would be Shakespeare and the King James Bible, and they were reliable touchstones for writers who could feel confident people would understand their allusions. It would be a great basis for later study if students started with a good grounding in the Bible as literature, Shakespeare, mythology, the Odyssey, the Iliad and the staples of a classical education. Certainly students should get more exposure to other playwrights, but Shakespeare is bedrock in terms of understanding literature.

---

The Family Sox just left my house! Yay for travelling Buffistas, and the most articulate and best behaved three year old I've seen in a long time. Plus, lemon tart.

---

OMG love the theater disussion. hello! What about Triumph Of Love from Marivaux? What we can't study French plays?

EARTHQUAKE!

Sure, one hits AFTER I leave!

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.

I hear Eddie Izzard doing "Cake or death" for that last bit.

In the class I would be teaching (if I get the job) it'll be all stuff outta a Glecoe text plus Elie Weisel's Night, which is fine, and Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, which kinda bores the fuck out of me. At least it's not The Pearl

I loved "Night", very heavy. We learned it in 8th grade. M&M, very boring. But Pearl? bad? C'mon. I liked that one.

OK, gotta go. Silly 1st day rehearsal. Making me work.

:: mutters, can't believe I missed an earthquake ::

---

So it would be helpful to have read Shakespeare, the Bible, many other cultures mythologies and The Odyssey before embarking on literature study, I doubt most high school students will do so, enjoy it or get much out of it.

I've had the opposite experience, but I also haven't taught in a school where I was forbidden to talk about anything controversial...no doubt that would have made it a much less rewarding experience for me and the students. The freshmen English class I've taught at my current school the past couple of years is a classical foundations course (though I throw in a fair amount of modern lit with complementary themes in order to give them a break from the more difficult language). I teach Catcher in the Rye, a variety of origin myths along with the Bible as literature, Lord of the Flies, Medea, the entire Odyssey (we do an overview of the Iliad before we begin), The Penelopiad (nothing like a little modern feminist perspective to shake them up after reading that tome), a bunch of poetry, and Macbeth. It's a tough year, but the kids consistently tell me that they learn a lot and enjoy the themes even if they don't always love each text. They also claim the class makes a huge difference for them in history and English classes from that point on. Makes me feel pretty good, to tell you the truth.

---

I wish I'd had a teacher like you and a class like that when I was in high school, Kristin.

---

What blew my mind was seeing Fishburne in Apocalypse Now and realizing it was him.

or, you know, Pee Wee's Playhouse.

---

Aw, thanks Susan. I'm proud of the curriculum even though it doesn't always make a lot of sense until you're in the middle of it. I swear it all goes together, though! We talk about the nature of religion and belief and civilization and power and gender politics and good/evil and it all somehow comes together in these books.

---

I love Luhrmann's R&J, especially once past the first 20 min.

---

Quine and Brecht. Brecht always claimed intentions far from what the audience got from his plays. You were supposed to have no sympathy for Mother Courage, Galileo was a coward and so on. This really fits Quine's theories about communication, whether Brecht was being truthful about his intent or not.

---

I really, really wanted to teach The Penelopeiad when I was teaching The Odyssey this year, but just not enough time. I just like the difference in perspectives.

Did you know that Ursula LeGuin's latest book, I think it's called Lavinia, is from the perspective of Aeneas' wife: not Dido (dead Dido, duH) but of the woman her married to found the Roman empire. I haven't read it yet, but I am always drawn to retellings of famous stories from the woman's perspective, even if the perspective is one I don't agree with in all particulars. (Mists of Avalon, I'm looking at you! Although I did love The Firebrand, which is Zimmer Bradley's version of Cassandra's story.)

---