Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: June ::
Re: Pedagogy: Course Structure
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1293  Tuesday, 27 June 2000.

[1]     From:   Pat Dolan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 26 Jun 2000 11:18:52 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1289 Re: Pedagogy: Course Structure

[2]     From:   Abdulla Al-Dabbagh <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 26 Jun 2000 23:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1289 Re: Pedagogy: Course Structure


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Pat Dolan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 26 Jun 2000 11:18:52 -0500
Subject: 11.1289 Re: Pedagogy: Course Structure
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1289 Re: Pedagogy: Course Structure

After wading through the ad hominem/feminam, I find that Pat Buckridge
still hasn't answered the question. What do you do when the students get
the words ("presently" and a host of others) and the history ("All women
in the Renaissance did was stay home and raise children.") wrong? I'm
sure that my students are bright enough to figure out the emotional and
ethical terms that I or any other teacher wants them to figure out and
reproduce them.  What I'm not sure of is how to teach Shakespeare the
best way possible.

In other words, what mix of historicism and formalism works best in the
classroom?

I wrote badly, allowing Pat Buckridge to misread my tone. I'm not the
least bit defensive about my take on Swilley's post. I think it's too
simple and doctrinaire to capture what happens when students and
teachers get together in the classroom, especially around literature
that comes from a culture which was, whether we like it or not,
significantly different than ours.

Regards,
Patrick

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abdulla Al-Dabbagh <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 26 Jun 2000 23:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 11.1289 Re: Pedagogy: Course Structure
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1289 Re: Pedagogy: Course Structure

The query on course structure took me decades back to my first adult
introduction to Shakespeare through the Shakespeare undergraduate course
that I took with Professor Norman Holland. For me, as for most of those
enrolled in the course, it was a grand entry both to Shakespeare's world
and to the realm of psychological literary criticism. We took a play a
week which, discounting the first and last weeks, amounted to something
like 12 or 13 plays in that one course. Plus a good dose of Erik
Erikson, who provided the psychoanalytic framework. It was an
exhilarating academic experience. Since then, I have, particularly in
the last ten years or so, taught Shakespeare in a variety of ways at
least a dozen times - but never, surprisingly, through Freudian or
post-Freudian lenses. Do fellow SHAKSPERians have similar experiences, I
wonder?
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.