One of the things that surprised me about social media (facebook in this case) was how people I'd known for a long time could barely string two sentences together, and tended to use meme/gifs in place of what I'd consider "real" communication. I personally would not expect the past to be any different.
That doesn't seem to be the thesis of the linked article at all. All it says is that memes with dated references are increasingly considered uncool. (I had little to no familiarity with the discussed memes, so it seems that the author's Internet bubble does not intersect much with mine--so I have no particular opinion on whether that thesis is well-supported.)
I believe you don't know the definition of a meme, if that is your take. They are by definition widespread, and can be pretty much any editable electronic media type.
Shit. Yeah, I guess it is. Let me try again, rephrasing the grandparent comment:
> Not every picture with text is a meme. To become a meme it requires a certain level of distribution.
becomes
"Not every sequence of amino acids is a gene. To become a gene it requires a certain level of self-replication."
Okay, so that's still a bit shaky, but I what I'm trying to get at is that a "meme" is something that includes its popularity in the definition. It's impossible for me to make a meme that only I see. That's just a photo or whatever.
Jokes, music, and insults can be inside jokes, or a Wu-Tang album, or a dig I only share with one other person. A meme is any of those things that's also popular in the viral sense. It encapsulates a maybe-complexish idea in a simple image.
If I asked you for a meme that demonstrates "wanting what I don't have, even though I have more than enough" you might give me that classic ::guy-looking-over-his-shoulder-at-pretty-girl-walking-by-while-his-girlfriend-gives-him-dagger-eyes:: one.
I think you could say that about our own genes as well. They don't physically pull the levers and whatnot to make their own copies. They rely on external cell machinery to pull the strands apart and start transcription and so on.
A gene "self-replicates" in an "emergent property" kind of way, in that it encodes the information necessary for its own future proliferation. A viral strand of DNA/RNA does the same thing, encoding the behaviors and structure of the virus such that it'll proliferate.
I'm not sure if overall literacy rates were as high in the past (in the sense of "what percentage of people can read"), but among those who could read, the level of reading and writing skill was dramatically higher. Consider that the works of Charles Dickens were released serially, and crowds of people thronged stores to pick up the latest addition to his stories when they arrived. Those are not books that a typical modern reader would find accessible.
A modern reader would consider them inaccessible mostly because of the archaic language and period references, which of course at the time were neither. Likewise with Shakespeare who we think of as incredibly high brow now, forcing schoolchildren to spend weeks poring over the language, but who at the time was writing the equivalent of soap operas and sitcoms in order to sell as many tickets as possible.
Shakespeare is very funny and crude, but he also wielded a larger vocabulary than we're used to in our penny theatre (TV shows, popular YA books, etc.) We also know that, if nothing else, poetry is good exercising for both sides of the brain, and most people won't bother with it outside of school. (There are more reasons to teach these things but I'm setting them aside.)
We don't even try to teach what was considered scholarly in 1600, let alone in Latin and French. Those works were also considered archaic back then, too.
I remember reading an unabridged edition of Huck Finn in 7th grade that my mom had in her book collection. I was shocked at how different it read than our assigned copies. And no, I'm not talking about the racial slurs. The abridged version was in a simplified English, paragraphs and whole chapters had been edited out or reordered, whereas the unabridged version was a colorful and playful style of English such that I had never before encountered. I was a voracious reader and it still took me a month or so to get through the unabridged version of the book. I had to "translate" the witticisms and puns, but came to realize in time that Mark Twain was exceptionally clever, very funny, and not at all as racist as the volume of N-words would have it appear. (For the record, I'm Black).
Nowadays, I doubt any schoolchild gets exposure to unabridged anything unless they have a parent with archaic book collections.
In the case of Shakespeare, it doesn't make sense to look at the reading level of 16th century Londoners because they were watching his plays, not reading them.
Well that's the problem with these game of telephone discussions. We went from the 18th century to the 19th and then all the way back to the 16th. Note that I didn't comment on Shakespeare specifically.
My favorite example is the "nothing" scene between Hamlet and Ophelia, where the whole thing is a double entendre for her pussy. Shakespeare was so, so dirty and a lot of people have no idea.
I think we shouldn't teach Shakespeare in school, because there is negative value in holding up something incomprehensible to students as the Height of Culture. I can't think of a better way to turn students off to "culture". If one wanted to design a program to turn students off to culture, I can hardly think of a better one.
And probably my best proof that absolutely nobody involved understands it is the complete and total obliviousness to the double entendres. If the teachers realized how dirty it was they might think twice about teaching it. If the parents realized it, there would be protests. But nobody realizes it. Nobody has a clue. Nobody understands what is being said at all. They're just all pretending because if you don't Get Shakespeare you're a stupid dum dum who is drooling your stupid all over your stupid face.
But basically nobody at that level does Get Shakespeare and they are just pretending.
This is not only not a good use of educational time, it's actively bad. So many students are going to be inclined to think education is a waste of time under the best of circumstances anyhow... why do we go to such efforts to prove them 100% correct?
But we have to keep teaching it. Because anyone who suggests that we should stop is obviously a stupid dum dum drooling stupid all over their stupid face, and who wants to be seen with a person like that?
A Shakespeare play is fine for a high school curriculum. It would be a good contrast for more modern works, and it is an important cultural touchstone.
But there's no good reason to cover four, or five of them. Just pick one, struggle through it, and then go analyse three or four works of modern theatre, and modern penny theatre.
Half the point of schooling is trying to instill interest in a subject. Nothing instills disinterest in theatre like spending 80% of your mental energy trying to figure out what the hell the words mean.
Shakespeare is meant to be seen. Shakespeare is meant to be parsable with no mental effort by the 16-th century groundlings with the rotten fruit and a strong desire to throw it.
Shakespeare in grade 8-12 English is neither of those things.
I truly believe that most people who enforce Shakespeare in education without acknowledging the absolute bawdiness of his works are themselves barely literate or poorly educated, and could not think of anyone more suitable.
That said, a high school English curriculum could do with more scandalous writers simply because teenagers love that stuff. I loved Oscar Wilde back in 10th grade. Absolutely scandalous, scathing, and hilarious writing.
Agreed. I think it should be taught, but taught from the HISTORICAL perspective, not from an arts/culture one. "This is an example of low brow comedy from a certain era" rather than "This is the greatest set of plays ever written". I got nothing out of Shakespeare culture wise, and mostly was just quite angry at having to read it.
I think that this is throwing the baby out with the bath water. I didn't fully get Shakespeare in high school, but I certainly found it to be interesting and beautiful. Not everyone does or will, but that's true for literally everything we teach in schools.
> And probably my best proof that absolutely nobody involved understands it is the complete and total obliviousness to the double entendres. If the teachers realized how dirty it was they might think twice about teaching it. If the parents realized it, there would be protests. But nobody realizes it. Nobody has a clue. Nobody understands what is being said at all. They're just all pretending because if you don't Get Shakespeare you're a stupid dum dum who is drooling your stupid all over your stupid face.
My high school covered a lot of classical literature: from Greek Mythology to Shakespeare.
Its all sex and violence. I mean, Oedipus Rex literally murders his father and has sex with his mother.
-----------
In any case, it should be taught because when you go to high-class museums, the naked statues in various mythologies will be staring at you... and unless you studied it you won't know anything.
Its high culture because its high culture. Low-brow sex jokes are bad, but "high-brow" sex jokes, well that's just the classics!!
Anyway, my high school English teachers were pretty explicit about these things. "Read this line. Okay, does everyone understand it? Please come up to the front and explain the meaning of this passage".
Uh huh... etc. etc. (a bunch of bad explanations from various classmates).
Teacher: "Yall are overthinking it. Its a sex joke. Okay, next passage".
"My high school covered all the classical literature: from Greek Mythology to Shakespeare."
Did you cover the Greek in the original Greek?
I actually would be fine with covering Shakespeare in what amount to a translation. The sex and violence does not bother me per se, as they are valid topics for true literature. As you allude to, we do that for many things. The problem is that we pretend Shakespeare is in English and present it to the students that way, but it really isn't anymore. It is at the very least in a very different dialect, and for practical purposes is in a different language.
When I say we shouldn't teach Shakespeare, I mean, in the way we do, not that he should be some sort of verboten topic. We teach it in a way that clearly nobody involved has any clue what is going on. Directly attacking that problem is fine, but first we have to get people to even be willing to admit it's a problem and it doesn't make you a stupid dum dum to say that language has shifted over the past 400+ years to the point that we can't expect to just throw it at modern teenagers and have them understand it even superficially, let alone deeply.
And to be honest, I will hold this point up as a counter to anything anybody else argues. Clearly, nobody involved understands what is going on. What is the point of teaching something the teacher is oblivious to? How hypothetically wonderful it might conceivably be if people more deeply understood it does not a single thing to change what is actually being tought. Until we can admit that what is actually being taught is lightyears from that hypothetical wonderfulness, we can't fix the problem and students will continue to be taught that High Literature is incomprehensible nonsense.
Shakespeare didn't speak as the English did in the 1500s. Shakespeare *CAUSED* the entire English-speaking world to change how they talk because he was that influential of a playwright.
So even back then, Shakespeare's mode of English was weird and exotic. No one, at any point of time, ever talked as Shakespeare did aside from entertainers.
In particular, the Iambic Pentameter rhythm of his words would be roughly the same as saying Eminem's "Lose Yourself" was is how people talked in the early 2000s. Erm... no. Eminem is a singer/rapper who makes rhymes and beats. So was Shakespeare. No one talks like how Eminem talks in rap songs.
Shakespeare's words are weird, exotic, and rhythmic. Like a 1500s version of rap (a different rhythm but a rhythm nonetheless). And that's part of the reason why Shakespeare had to make up so many words: because he needed the rhythm to line up just right. (And then English was forever changed, with people using the made-up words from Shakespeare in everyday language. But definitely not the Iambic Pentameter beat because nobody's got time for that).
--------
Did your English teacher ever do the "Da daaaa Da Daaaa Da Daaa Da Daaaa" thing to help guide the rhythm of Shakespeare with you?
When we were covering Shakespeare in my English class, we also covered Robert Burns poems (from the 1700s), to remind people how common people talked centuries ago. In all honesty, today's English is closer to Shakespeare than to Robert Burns... despite Shakespeare being 1500s and Robert Burns being 1700s. Its a testament to how incredibly influential Shakespeare was.
When I was in school we were taught about Iambic Pentameter and even had a few demonstrations. But I was never able to grasp or appreciate the significance of it. To me it seems no different than the 5-7-5 rule of a Haiku. Neat, but nothing profound.
Many of us wondered why our English curriculum was so keen on Iambic Pentameter despite the fact that it doesn't really seem to have affected modern English. I say that because it's so hard to recognize, even when using fully modern vocabulary. Apparently the Gravemind in Halo 2 speaks in IP and I'm sure that fact is lost on over 99% of players.
Whereas teaching students about all the words Shakespeare introduced and just how many tropes originate from his plays seems far more valuable to know.
Iambic Pentameter is just a rhythm to add a beat to the play. Its not something crazy influential, but its needed if you are to "perform" Shakespeare, in your head or on stage.
I bring it up because Iambic Pentameter is probably the only crazy thing that's "not done today" that's all over Shakespeares works (as well as the variations of Iambic Pentameter to keep the rhythm spicy).
And Iambic Pentameter is not so much a hard rule as it is a soft one. Most lines are IP... but when Shakespeare wants to emphasize certain lines, he'll change the rhythm up. So its a way to cue the audience in with a subtle change.
I studied shakespeare in highschool. Like actually studied and performed the source text. Everyone there "understood" it. Not "understanding it" is merely a symptom of not putting in the effort. Since Shakespeare literally created much of what we call modern English it is actually very easy for a modern teenager to understand shakespeare. You might be thinking of Chaucer, which is actually much more difficult to understand. Shakespeare just requires the bare modicum of effort and its really not that hard.
> Hamlet: Get thee to a nunnery! Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners? I am myself indifferent honest but yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me. I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offences at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to give them shape, or time to act them in. What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves – believe none of us. Go thy ways to a nunnery. Where’s your father?
[Snip]
> Hamlet. If thou dost marry, I'll give thee this plague for thy dowry: be thou as chaste as ice, as pure as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny. Get thee to a nunnery. Go, farewell. Or if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool; for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them. To a nunnery, go; and quickly too. Farewell.
I mean, what do people want with regards to a modern translation? Like, I could say "Hamlet then insults Ophelia by saying she should die as a virgin with a double-entendre also suggesting she's a whore" (Due to a quirk in the language of the 1500s, nunnery is a slang term for whorehouse), but its just not as awesome as the insult Hamlet actually slings in the play.
Its over the top, but you know, that's how theater is supposed to be sometimes. (And doubly so: Hamlet himself is being over-the-top on purpose "in universe").
---------
In my high school, there were "translation notes" so to speak... to help with the slang of the 1500s, to help you out when terms had a 2nd meaning that'd be lost on today. But the base layer is in fact, quite straightforward.
Its really not hard to understand the words as written, though I can definitely see needing deeper analysis + more reading to fully comprehend the scenes and all layers of the play.
But yeah, its like, almost all sex jokes, double-entendres, incredible insults. Etc. etc. Its probably the most low-brow, base humor just with an air of "Smart people think this is cultural" about it. Its stuff high schoolers should honestly find interesting, if its taught correctly.
The public scribes of the times (who were dictated a good part of the letters in the article) are well documented, and what I read of them is coherent with these letters.
The language is very informal. Since the guys were paid by word or page, they just wrote whatever was dictated. Hence the informal language. The first letter reads something like:
"Your father-in-law greets you your sister greets you your brother I haven't seen since Mrs XXXX has asked news from you please pass my compliments to YYYY his wife alone gives me news from you."
This was possibly a letter from someone who could hardly read anything else than a prayer book (or had eye problems) to someone who couldn't read at all.
The language here is very modern, only a few outdated expressions. I've had much more trouble with professional letters from Napoleonic times, full of abbreviations and references to old social, judicial or political structures and procedures.
Life was much slower paced, and it sounds like all these letters are on very high quality paper for the time so it makes sense these were very deliberate expression of communication. These undelivered letters from wives and mothers to their husbands serving aboard a French warship that was captured are like a snapshot in time, and the historian writes that many were possibly written by scribes hired for their literacy. To give some idea of how much slower paced, the tragedy of the one wife who died a year after sending her letter who probably never knew the fate of her husband.
You're reading cherry-picked letters from verbose and emotional writers, not random Joes. The poorly written ones don't make it to venues like this. Comparing this to someone's busy social media feed is a bit disingenuous. Not to mention for all you know, some of these people can write love letters like this, but why should you know that? You're not the object of their love.
The same way probably no one in these people's lives knew they wrote love letters like this while they were alive.
Not to mention that "love letter writing" was a form of social obligation, courtship norms, and even PUA-like tactics back then for many people and not always the sincere original poetry modern people like us might think it is.
Its a lot of people lifting phrases and ideas from others to please or even manipulate current or potential lovers. Some of these soldiers had several women back home and wrote many letters to all of them, maximizing their odds of a relationship or sex when they are discharged. While I certainly believe in romantic love, I also think its important to remember people in the past weren't different from us and some of this is disingenuous writing or seen as honest but exaggerated rote obligation, and not often this expression of deep love that suddenly turns a dullard borderline illiterate into a prolific writer of poetic love letters. This is a practiced pretension and artform and our history has always had elaborate courtship ritual just like near any other animal has.
We just don't practice this often today, but if you decided to learn the art of love letters, you'd be just as good as any of these people over time I imagine. You probably won't because that's seen as an out of style courtship ritual, and instead you probably are good at other, more modern, courtship rituals.
For a decade news aggregators have demonstrated people don’t want to read two sentences together and we’re stuck with videos that suck massive amounts of time…sadly…
