July 11th: Shakespeare Dos and Don'ts

Steven Estep
English Department
Johnson Central HS
Paintsville, KY

​During the first class of our NEH Institute "Transforming Shakespeare's Tragedies," we encountered the "Eight Don'ts of Teaching Shakespeare'' from chapter 2 of Ralph Alan Cohen's book ShakesFear and How to Cure It (a copy awaits me at home already). This chapter includes all of the things that I typically do when I teach the immortal Bard. It's an old school mentality that I feel not only compelled to cover every line and scene of the play but also that I have a (divided) duty to improve their cultural literacy and make it relevant. 

​The don'ts on this list include teacher favorites like memorization, films, stage productions, research, and reading aloud. Even with the author's caveat "except sometimes," it made me wonder...well, what DO I do? How did I get so much wrong? I am guilty of all these things, but then again, that's why I'm here this summer, to learn about what to do and how to do it better. I want to believe with all the reading aloud that my students did that they at least understood the plays better, or at least had fun while I read Lady Macbeth's "unsex me here" while splaying my arms wide or "screw your courage" or screamed "out damned spot" or even coaching them on how to read the words "what ho" as something other than a direct address. Even the opportunity to bring life to Dogberry's "you are an ass" was a great moment of fun. 
 
As we looked further into what TO DO, I was much relieved because I also did these things more than I thought I did. Although I've not dealt with sound or staging, I have dealt with the dirty stuff and character. And now, I've only to figure out how to approach the concept of will in its many iterations. Thanks Jennifer [Institute co-Director Jennifer Flaherty] for that insight! Will will never be the same or is it will will never be the same. See what I did there? Leaning into the ambiguity there, folks. To be honest, students are much more adept at pointing out problems with the play and poor speakers, and I remember those moments clearly. I think, in all honesty, that we do these things much more than we give ourselves credit for. 
 
Personally, I'm a sucker for those minor characters in anything and how they move the play forward or those minor words and gestures that, on a second or third or even fourth examination, yield something more fascinating than the major soliloquies or the primary characters. I am wont to overlook songs and even minor minor characters like "the gentleman" (except sometimes) but no more! Had it not been for this seminar, such ambiguities and tension would have continued to be overlooked. How fascinating now is that Gentleman and those songs that yielded far more meaning (except sometimes) than whether or not Hamlet has the propensity (dare I say testicular or intestinal fortitude) to act in any capacity. I'm a detail person so examining small things is not far out of my comfort zone (except sometimes). My daughter calls such characters Hopkins characters as a jab at me, but we've adapted that name to those minor characters whom we love although those characters are essentially silent or truly behind the scenes. Sometimes the blue shirt is just the blue shirt (except sometimes). 
 
In the end, I think most of us have done it right or at least competently. Ralph Alan Cohen, though, has opened my eyes to more possibilities of the small things. And isn't it usually about the small things (except sometimes)?