Skip to main content

End of Hamlet

I need to rethink how I have students interact with Hamlet (and Hamlet). I have a lot of passion for the play--possibly too much; see picture below--and that means that I take it personally when students don't get as much out of the play as they could.

I do what I can to get them excited. I dress, for instance, in black when Hamlet dies, as part homage, part mourning.

So lugubrious.
I know that students respond to the passion, but when I have them recreate a scene, memorize a monologue, or video record themselves speaking some of the lines, inevitably they feel slapped together, day-before quality. One kid even exulted that he'd memorized his "To be or not to be" speech last night, and was thrilled that he did so well (and he did fine, in all honesty).

I can't decide if I'm too generous with the criteria, or if I'm expecting too much. It's a difficult thing, because I know that Shakespeare, incorrectly taught, will kill any hope of a student finding truth in the Bard's works later in life. On the other hand, if I allow it to be treated too lightly, then the importance of it could be lost as a punchline.

There's no simple answer to this, and the greatest frustration is that I don't know if I can trust myself to change. I know this current version works (or, at least, is passable), but I don't know if I can convince myself to do something different. In other areas, yeah--I experiment all of the time. But Hamlet is my baby, my great love, my strongest anchor to where and what I teach. How can I change that? There's also momentum of expectations to consider: My students have younger siblings, and much of what they remember fondly from my class they transmit to their brothers and sisters, who enter with certain understandings and expectations. I don't want to disappoint those, particularly if I don't know if the replacement choices are worthwhile.

I think I'll need to ponder the way I end Hamlet some more.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Rage Against the Video Game Machine?

NOTE: If you haven't read the ' Foregrounding ' blog post or the one entitled ' Rough Draft ', please do that first. They're both short, but they matter a lot for what you're about to read. Okay. Done. Enjoy. Zach de la Rocha: "On truth devoured/Silent play in the shadow of power/A spectacle monopolized/The cameras eyes on choice disguised." Rage Against the Machine's single "Guerilla Radio" from their Battle of Los Angeles album is a reaction against the political circus and faux-choice presentations during the 2000 elections. The quote is not in full context (it is much more political than theoretical) here, but it provides a powerful starting block. A little bit of re-punctuation will help to clarify the thrust: "On truth devoured, silent play in the shadow of power [is] a spectacle [that] monopolized the cameras' eyes-on choice disguised." Line by line, we see parallels between how video games are perceived outside o...

Dark Necessities

The second of my "music video essays", I'm exploring the single from Red Hot Chili Peppers' newest album, The Getaway , "Dark Necessities". As I did before, I'm posting the video and the lyrics here on the essay, and encourage you to watch and read along. In the case of the Peppers, it's always a good idea to have the lyrics handy, as the lead singer, Anthony Kiedis, has a tendency of mumbling and/or pronouncing words uniquely to create a particular effect--or he's super high, either possibility is there.  The Set Up Here's the video: And here are the lyrics : Coming out to the light of day We got many moons than a deeper place So I keep an eye on the shadow's smile To see what it has to say You and I both know Everything must go away Ah, what do you say? Spinning off, head is on my heart It's like a bit of light and a touch of dark You got sneak attacked from the zodiac But I see your eyes spark Keep the breeze and go Blow...

On Violence

NOTE: This is a long one. It's also a lot more theoretical than conversational. If you have a question, please feel free to post so that I can try to be more clear. There is little debate on what the greatest debate is when it comes to video games: Does the imaginary violence of the game translate into violent behavior in the real world? It seems to be very much a 'depends on your point of view' type of argument. Not only does it depend on one's point of view, but also the particular study itself, what it focuses on, and how well it's managed. It is also important to note the rhetorical tricks of the debate*, since most of the data are coming from second or third sources. But I am no statistician, so numbers do nothing to help me to understand the issue. In fact, numbers about this argument are superfluous, since the entire point of gaming (whether the gamer/designer/critic is aware of it or not) is the individual as the ideal. Let's look at violence, then, shal...