On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:25:27 +0200, "Gilles Tran"
<gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:


>a9fg54l5btk1s87hemar5bm6ht4d3si961@4ax.com...
>
>> Shakespeare is inappropriate for children, they cannot understand the
>> language. Who amongst us understands the joke in Troilus and Cressida
>> when someone asks where Ajax is and the answer is "Looking for
>> himself" You need to know that Ajax sounds like "a jacksie" or an old
>> fashioned name for a toilet. That is he was crapping himself.
>
>Actually I think that's what makes it particularly suitable for children (or 
>at least young teenagers). The fact that the dirty jokes and innuendos have 
>to be explained to modern audiences - and some, like the "two backed beast", 
>don't really have to - does not make them less palatable. There's a healthy 
>dose of slapstick and crude humor in Shakespeare that makes it very 
>attractive to kids, provide you give them the keys of course.
>
That's the argument that I used to use until I realised that it was my
own personal likes I was trying to promote. Anyway it is not taught
like that in Britain, at least not when I was at school. We were given
school editions with the obvious smutty bits cut out. (Put your hand
to the buttery bar etc.) We concentrate on the "beauty" of the
language, the relevance to modern day and "you will learn it 'cause I
say so. Not on the entertainment and fun. Countrie matters, rustics
and rude mechanicals are treated as something to apologise for. (Even
The Great Shakespeare had to pander to the base tastes of the paying
public.) 
OK I'll get down off my high horse, whether it costs me my kingdom or
not :)
Yes! Stephen get down off the stove you're too old to be riding the
range :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message