This year, in teaching my Shakespeare course, I used the 450th birthday as an excuse to get students to bring Shakespeare awareness to campus. To that end, I created an assignment that I called “Pop-up Shakespeare,” which I described like this:

You will be developing some sort of experience for your fellow Heidelberg students, whether it’s through chalking Shakespearean sonnets onto the sidewalks, developing a Shakespeare film festival, performing flash mob scenes, or creating a Shakespeare-related volunteer project (just to suggest some ideas). For this assignment you can work with a group or alone. You must document the event through pictures; you will also write a brief analysis of your work, explaining why you chose to do what you did.

The object of the assignment was to encourage students to have some fun with Shakespeare and to exercise some creativity in doing so. It was ultimately a small part of the final grade, but I wanted something that would make Shakespeare just a bit less intimidating and would make literature a bit more visible on campus.

The results were fun — and I heard from a number of colleagues in other departments how much they were enjoying the different things that students were posting around campus. We had some sidewalk chalk, we had a movie night in one of the residence halls, and mostly we had a lot of great signs.

Consider this: with enough time on his hands or money in her pocket, an industrious young man or woman of 21 in 1584 could have seen the premier of the plays of John Lyly, as well as plays by Thomas Kyd, Christopher Marlowe, and Robert Greene before she or he hit 30.  In the next decade, my imaginary – though aging – playgoer could see plays by all of the Thomases (Heywood, Dekker, Middleton), the Johns (Marston, Webster, Fletcher), Ben Jonson, Francis Beaumont, Cyril Tourneur before he or she had passed his or her 40^th.  Won’t they be tired?  Oh yeah, by the way, they could have also seen all the plays of Shakespeare, and about 1200 more for which we have records in the period.

But we don’t have world or time enough – in fact we only have fifteen weeks.  So I end up selected about 25 plays and, by selecting, doom each play to the status of sample.  Each play must be a sample of something about all of the other plays in the period not written by William Shakespeare, and there’s a surprisingly large number of them. This in turn seems to doom the class to an exercise in which whoever wrote the play they’re reading, they’re always reading a play not-by-Shakespeare, whereas when they’re reading a play by Shakespeare, they’re never reading a play, for instance, not-by-Marston. A former student in the course put it crudely but effectively when she said, there’s Shakespeare and there’s early modern drama. She’s right.

I’m not really complaining, and I’m certainly not diagnosing. At this point I’m merely describing the case that is the case. After all, what else would we want to call the class?

• Tudor, Jacobean, and Carolinian Drama
• Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Century Plays in English
• Plays in English: 1580-1642
• Non-Shakespearean Early Modern Entertainments
• Early English Drama
• Medieval and Renaissance Drama

I could write several hundred words, at least, on the problems of each title, but I’ll spare you for now. Suffice to say that all these course names are variously misleading.  For now, at least, “Shakespeare’s Contemporaries” will serve. Not least because it seems, of all the titles auditioned here, to be the most provocatively bad.  “Shakespeare’s Contemporaries” is the worst possible name for the course, except for all the others.

The last time I taught my Shakespeare course, I developed a movie night assignment for my students.  I offered six movie nights over the course of the semester, and students were required to attend one movie and write a commentary on it.  (They could earn extra credit for an additional movie – and several of the students enjoyed the films so much that they attended all of the screenings, which were also open to the whole student body.)

On the assignment sheet, I explained that the assignment had three primary objectives:

1.  to encourage students to consider the implications of viewing a Shakespearean play, rather than reading it
2. to encourage students to consider the assumptions underlying directors’ interpretations of plays, either through a fairly straightforward rendering of the text or a radical reinterpretation of the text
3. to encourage students to appreciate that at the core of the study of drama is the need to recognize the role that performance plays in our interpretation of a play as an audience

After the students attended, they wrote the review considering these questions:

1. How does the movie diverge from the text as written?
2. What are the implications of that divergence on your understanding of the play itself? On your understanding of the nature of drama as a whole?
3. How does the film version of the movie challenge your assumptions about the play?

I showed students some films that were fairly straightforward, with Trevor Nunn’s Twelfth Night probably being the most faithful to its corresponding play.  What made for much more interesting commentary from the students – both in their written responses and in the classroom discussion the next day – were the films that strayed far from the text, like Throne of Blood and Scotland, PA.  One of the students who attended Throne of Blood wrote in her review of the film that she almost left when she realized the film was in black and white and had subtitles, but that she stayed and was thrilled to have done so (a success for my objective on aesthetics).

The day after each film, we opened class with a discussion of what we’d seen the night before, and students who had attended summarized and explained what happened in the film to the students who did not attend.  We were then able to discuss the importance of the director and the actors, as well as what sort of effect their choices had on our understanding of the film.

I think, because they were the most popular and the most strange, Scotland, PA and Throne of Blood had a significant impact on our discussion of Macbeth, and particularly on the characterization of the title character and his wife.  Kurosawa’s Macbeth (Washizu) is relentlessly ambitious and violent, but falls victim to his own paranoia that’s continually stoked by his vicious wife. Joe “Mac” McBeth of the other film is a foolish bumbler, whose primary victories occur based on the goading of his greedy and lustful wife.  They’re two very different versions of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, but the play itself provides suggestions that any of those descriptions might be present for the characters as Shakespeare envisioned them: lust, ambition, paranoia.  Even the idea that the warrior might be a bit out of his element (like Joe McBeth) can be found in the play.

Having discussed these things, next time I’d like to put some further work into having students explore, for each film, the question of why the play is adaptable in this way. The film adaptations are not completely without basis in the plays, of course.  Kurosawa saw something in the play; Billy Morissette saw something else.  Alexander McCall Smith saw something entirely different in the play – and saw a similarity to the social relationships between baboons, which he then spun into his recent opera, The Okavango Macbeth.  My students can see those things, and talking about them has helped us open up the door not only to understanding Shakespeare thematically, but also to appreciating that Shakespeare is fun.

I’m planning on trying this again with my Shakespeare students this fall.  I’ll have to find some new films, since I’m using a different theme this time (last time: Shakespeare’s women; this time: Shakespeare’s villains).  Some of the plays will be the same (Macbeth, Lear, Titus), but I’m going to include Othello, The Tempest, and Richard III this time around.

I’m casting about for a wide variety of films to use (both this fall and in future Shakespeare courses), so I’d like to ask readers for suggestions.  What films should I know about?  What are your favorite adaptations of Shakespearean plays?

For example, I’ve pointed out to students that there’s a certain Cartman (of South Park)-esque “Respect my authoritah” attitude in much of Richard III’s interactions with other characters (other Cartman catch-phrases work equally well with Richard II, incidentally).  I’ve also taken great advantage of YouTube clips to draw students into an understanding of the cultural relevance of Shakespeare: we’ve watched a video of Peter Sellers reciting The Beatles’ “Hard Day’s Night” in the style of Laurence Olivier’s Richard III, and we’ve compared the President’s speech in Independence Day to Olivier’s rendition of the St. Crispin’s Day speech.

These aren’t simply gimmicks to encourage student interest; aside from my own appreciation for pop culture, I have a larger purpose in introducing these comparisons, a purpose based in my own educational training.  Taking its cues from cognitive psychology, constructivist educational philosophy* suggests that we organize all of our experiences and all of our knowledge in “cognitive schema.”  Essentially, we build information on already existing knowledge and attempt to make sense of new information based on those structures of understanding.  In order to facilitate significant learning and thinking, educators need to create a sense of cognitive dissonance – a point where the student must grapple with information that does not fit within his or her cognitive schemata.  From this point of dissonance, individuals construct their own understanding of information.

Since part of what we’re teaching when we’re teaching literature is appreciation – whether it’s of language or the place of literature in culture – we need to help students make the links.  Having students connect to their own knowledge can be a significant way to encourage students to think about their own views of literature, to create that cognitive dissonance that encourages critical thinking and deep understanding of the material.  This is particularly true with Shakespeare— a class which can feel so disconnected from present day student experience—whether we’re teaching it in a senior level course for English majors or a first year general education course.

By having students consider the relationship between Shakespeare’s characters, ideas and language, we can encourage students to recast their understanding of Shakespeare – we’re told we have to read Shakespeare, but as students we don’t always know why.  Once students can begin to understand the relevance of Shakespeare beyond “school stuff,” we can continue to delve more deeply into what it is that we’re looking at.

So perhaps the pop culture thing does begin as something of a gimmick.  But ultimately it must reach beyond a means to grab students’ attention at the beginning of class.  Rather, part of our work in the classroom is to give the students a reason to grapple with Shakespeare.

Certainly character comparisons in class discussion can be useful.  Having students cast a play with current actors and celebrities can also be effective, particularly since it requires students to actually understand the characters in the play (and will result in very contemporary pop culture).  I’ve seen useful exercises with various forms of social networking as well – an acquaintance of mine has experimented with using Ning to have students build social networks populated by characters in a play.

And I could go on.  My point here is that pop culture is not a distraction from teaching significant works of literature, but rather an asset.  It’s a way in – and if we can help our students comprehend the relevance of Shakespeare (or any other major literary figure), we can open the door for more significant discussion.  Literature is part of culture, and it is foundational for much of the culture that our students consume.  They just don’t always think that’s the case.

*My understanding of constructivist educational philosophy derives primarily from the work of the professors at my alma mater, Augustana College (Illinois).  In particular, I would point to Constructivist Methods for the Secondary Classroom: Engaged Minds by Ina Claire Gabler and Mike Schroeder.  Dr. Schroeder was one of my professors at Augustana.

At least a few times during the semester, though, I create opportunities for students to engage with the performance of written texts. This might seem like an optional activity that doesn’t have the substance of a lecture or in-depth discussion, but I would disagree. In fact, in-class recitations can generate real excitement among students, in part because memorization requires a slow, attentive reading that we wish for every time we assign a new text.

With this in mind, I recommend the Shakespeare Sonnet Slam as a classroom activity. In an English literature survey we spend a couple of classes reading sonnets by Shakespeare and his contemporaries, but because these sonnets represent one small unit out of many in a survey course, that’s about all the time we have for The Bard’s sequence. Even so, the memorization requires students to read their poem with a quality of attention that they wouldn’t ordinarily have. Even if our activity means that we get to spend less time discussing other poets, students quickly understand the power of a poetic sequence, and how it can convey a variety of emotional and intellectual struggles in innovative ways.

Here’s how it works:

1. First, I ask students to memorize one of Shakespeare’s sonnets. If students are anxious about the process of memorizing a poem, I offer them several strategies: they can write the poem, longhand, several times until they get a sense of how the lines fit together; they can photocopy the poem and carry it with them, memorizing it throughout the week; or they can memorize the poem by reciting it once through, then hiding the final word of the poem and reading it through, then hiding the final two words of the poem and reading it through, and so on until they’re reciting the poem with no words exposed.
2. Once students have memorized their poem, the next task is understanding. In order for them to deliver Shakespeare’s lines with emotional accuracy, they have to attend to his sonnet logic: the turn that occurs, usually in the final couplet; the if/then structure that Shakespeare relies on to create tension in many of his poems; and the rhetorical strategies of his poems, whether they be blazons, anti-blazons, complaints, or poems of praise. I remind students that they have to make the language come alive so that anyone who listens will be deeply moved. With as many as twenty-five students in a class or discussion section, this can be quite challenging, but I’ve found that my students are so engaged with this challenge that they’re willing to extend the slam over two class meetings. I also recommend that they go to Poetry Out Loud for some advice on reciting well.
3. When students recite their poems in class, they must also be prepared to talk about what they learned as a result of the process. They can talk about the narrative situation of the poem, the way Shakespeare relies on inherited wisdom from Erasmus, the Bible, or his contemporaries, or anything else that they think could be valuable to our understanding of the poem as a whole.

Each student takes about 3-4 minutes for their total performance. In the past, I’ve sometimes asked colleagues to be the “judge” for the slam; other times, I’ve relied on students as the judges. The judges are allowed to award two prizes: one for exceptional recitation, and one for exceptional explication. Of course, one student could potentially receive both prizes. If you’re looking for a way to engage your students, try this exercise; if you already do something similar in your survey courses, please respond to this blog entry.

Poets around the country have dealt with sentimentality in a few inventive ways.

In 2008, when Ted Kooser’s book Valentines had just been published, NPR’s All Things Considered recounted how the former poet laureate had been sending an original Valentine’s Day poem to women all over the country for the past 20 years.

In 1986, when the project began, his list contained a mere 50 women. In 2007, the number had grown to 2,700. According to the story, he spent almost $1,000 in postage that year.  Read the full piece and listen to Kooser’s valentines here.

But back to this year. Anticipating a sticky day of chocolates and roses, writer-provocateur Jonathan Ames, with poets Mark Halliday, Bob Hicok, Donna Masini, and “break-up expert” Jerry Williams, will host an anti-Valentine’s Day party in Brooklyn, NY (February 11). The poets are launching the compilation, It’s Not You, It’s Me: The Poetry of Breakup (powerHouse books) and celebrating, as the listing says, “the darker side of love.”

If you’re looking for well-loved poems as models for writing or for teaching, or even as gifts for friends, the videos on Favorite Poem Project’s Web site are quick and inspiring.

Finally, the Poetry Foundation has a fabulous resource page, organized by themes such as “funny love,” “classic love,” “teen love,” and “break up.” The page includes audio resources and feature essays such as “Love Lessons from High School Students,” by Brian Staveley, that should prove helpful for lesson planning, teaching, and getting through the day itself.

However you teach, ignore, deny, or celebrate Valentine’s Day in the classroom, drop us a line and let us know how you did it.

Happy Valentine’s Day!

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Joelle Hann is a senior editor at Bedford/St.Martin’s who worked on the third edition of Helen Vendler’s Poems, Poets, Poetry, and originally created the Teaching Poetry blog in 2009.

Today’s sonnet:

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Joelle Hann is a senior editor at Bedford/St.Martin’s who worked on the third edition of Helen Vendler’s Poems, Poets, Poetry, and originally created the Teaching Poetry blog in 2009.