Categories
antifeminism creepy disgusting women girl germs I'm totally being sarcastic irony alert misogyny oppressed men oppressed white men quiz quote of the day reactionary bullshit vaginas

Quote of the day: “We’re approaching peak vagina on television, the point of labia saturation.”

Ladies, please! We don't need to see THAT.

Quiz! Who said the following, in reference to the presence of women on television?

Enough, ladies. I get it. You have periods. … [W]e’re approaching peak vagina on television, the point of labia saturation.

Was it?

  1. W.F. Price of The Spearhead
  2. Christopher in Oregon, legendary vagina-hating Man Going His Own Way
  3. Reddit commenter VjayjaysAreIcky69

Trick question! It was actually Two and a Half Men co-creator Lee Aronsohn, complaining to The Hollywood Reporter about the female-centric sticoms that have popped up of late. (There’s plenty to complain about when it comes to shows like Whitney and 2 Broke Girls, but “the main characters have vaginas” ain’t it.)

In a keynote address at the Toronto Screenwriting Conference, Aronsohn also defended his show’s tendency to portray women in a less-than-flattering light:

Screw it. … We’re centering the show on two very damaged men. What makes men damaged? Sorry, it’s women. I never got my heart broken by a man.

So brave, Aronsohn, so brave, standing up to the Matriarchy like that!

On ThinkProgress, Alyssa Rosenberg lays into Aronsohn:

[H]aving to hear that ladies have menstrual cycles, take birth control pills, and enjoy sex is just unbearable, right? Because even though the number of female characters on television tends to hover in the low 40 percent range, we’re just saturated with vaginas, because god forbid stories about men and their ish don’t absolutely dominate the media? Because even though those shows Aronsohn’s complaining about have actually created more writing and directing jobs for men than women, and resulted in some really awful portrayals as a result, we couldn’t possibly let women come to expect that they’ll have access to stories both about them and by them, could we? Because where would that leave poor, suffering, disadvantaged American men?

And then she takes on the entertainment industry in general, for tolerating his troglodyte views:

[T]hat Aronsohn is dumb and woman-fearing enough not just to believe this, to blithely admit he believes it to a major publication tells you everything about how cosseted Hollywood’s disgusting sexists are. You want to know why we get what we get on movie and television screens? …  Because there are, apparently, no consequences in Hollywood for being perfectly open about how much you despise women’s bodies and the contours of women’s lives.

Maude Lebowski, what do you have to say about all this?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

184 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ithiliana
8 years ago

sexy Shakespeare for actors and scholars

https://depts.washington.edu/asuwxpcl/courses/view/12SP.27.14901

kiki
kiki
8 years ago

You see that thing pictured in the OP? Six of them attacked me once, but they were so scared of my super manly-man manliness that they didn’t even dare leave their eldritch dimension of pure chaos and insanity to come and get me.

pillowinhell
8 years ago

Who ever heard of TV being entertaining?/end snark

I mean we all know that there’s only one kind of humor and one kind of entertaining thing to watch right?

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

@ Wisteria

As soon as I saw the first bits of news about that shooting I knew that it was going to turn out to be motivated by misogyny. Taking place at a nursing school, most of the victims women, female classmates talking about how scary they found the guy when he was still a student…it fits the pattern.

drst
drst
8 years ago

My thing with the “I’m so superior tv is for the uneducated masses” line is those people don’t seem to recognize EVERY SINGLE FORM OF MEDIA AND ART ever has both good and bad stuff in it.

I mean, really. Have these people ever browsed a bookstore? I have no issue with anyone who likes any kind of book but the idea that books are automatically higher class than tv… just, no.

Don’t get me started on theatre.

Guest This
Guest This
8 years ago

I appreciate people here calling out the anti-TV bullshit. It has always pissed me off, but I haven’t been able to articulate why. Probably because I’m an idiot who sacrificed her last brain cell to “Peep Show”. But, God, it was worth it.

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

Wasn’t Shakespeare’s plays once considered as entertainment for the uneducated masses. I heard that once, but might be wrong,

kiki
kiki
8 years ago

Y’all should try being a lifelong comics fan. It’s excellent training for (1) not caring what anyone else thinks of your favourite medium and (2) becoming comfortable with the fact that 99% of your favourite medium’s output is utter shit.

Ithiliana
8 years ago

Smart does not mean not dirty.

Classical or canonized does not mean no sex, drugs, rock’n’ roll.

They’ve been bowdlerizing Shakespeare since the Victorians, maybe longer (not my field).

There’s damn good tv on these days–and odds are had Shakespeare been writing today, he’d be writing for tv (theatre people in England back then were one step above whores and pickpockets–it was POPULAR entertainment. People paid a small amount of money and stood in the open to watch the plays).

Plays didn’t become admitted to the higher elite cultural status until we had film to appeal to the masses.

Then tv took the lowest cultural status (ditto comic books and such).

(delayed in posting because tornado warning!)

Ithiliana
8 years ago

@Kyrie: Yes, they (Shakespeare’s plays) were.

His sonnets were the ‘elite art.’

And they were dirty too! (My medievalist/early modern colleague teaches the WHOLE Shakespeare, and once she told me about a male student coming up after the introductory lecture to the sonnets and telling her if he’d known they were pornography, he wouldn’t have given a copy to his younger sister for her birthday! FILTH they are!)

Polliwog
Polliwog
8 years ago

His sonnets were the ‘elite art.’

And they were dirty too!

Heh, semi-relevant anecdote: I still have fond memories of the time in high school that my class was reading several of the sonnets and came to 128 (“How oft, when thou, my music, music play’st”), and my teacher asked the class, “So what is he saying here?” The conversation went something like this.

Student A: He’s saying that his girlfriend or whatever is beautiful like music.
Teacher: Well, yes, sort of, but think more straightforward. What is this poem about?
Student B: How he wants to be a piano to be close to her, since she touches the piano and stuff.
Teacher: Okay, yes, but that’s not quite what I mean. Just spit it out, guys.
Me: It’s about him being horny.
Teacher: THANK YOU! SEX, people! SEX SEX SEEEEEEEEX!

Falconer
Falconer
8 years ago

@Ithiliana:

(theatre people in England back then were one step above whores and pickpockets–it was POPULAR entertainment. People paid a small amount of money and stood in the open to watch the plays).

Plays didn’t become admitted to the higher elite cultural status until we had film to appeal to the masses.

Bullshit.

Yeah, the Globe and playhouses like it had the standing-room in front of the stage. But they also had stalls and boxes for the upper classes.

Elizabeth I and James I (VI of Scotland) are both reputed to have enjoyed the Bard’s soaring language and his genitalia jokes.

Ollie Cromwell’s Puritans burned down all the playhouses because they were stick-in-the-mud killjoys who did think plays ruined the character of the working classes. They were some of the worst classists and patronizing gits ever to walk upon England’s mountains green.

Please don’t try to claim that the Lord Peter Wimseys of the world did not go to the theater until the motion picture came along to make Gilbert & Sullivan respectable.

Ithiliana
8 years ago

@Falconer: I don’t think I quite claimed that.

Sure, the elites could enjoy theatre and did.

But as an art form–it took a while to become as elite as say, poetry.

And the ‘respectability’ of actors (and others involved with theatre) was pretty dicey as well–lots of tie ins with prostitution.

My general point is that Shakespeare was not held in the same status during his heyday as he is not, i.e. canonized as the GREATEST literary figure in “Western civilization,” etc.

But then I only did a master’s in theatre as well as a couple in English–back in the day–my information may be out of date–that was all over by 1982 when I dropped out before doing my exams in the theatre dept, and went off for a while. I didn’t go back for my doctorate until late 1980s, and I didn’t do theatre or drama or Shakespeare then, just the contemporary stuff.

So, do you have any citations for these claims so I can update myself? Becuase when I’ve taught Shakespeare in my intro to lit (NON majors course), with critical essays and editions, a lot of the contemporary stuff they have (contemporary to Shakespeare) didn’t contradict what I remembered from my coursework back in the day (and the only students in my course who knew women couldn’t be actors then knew it from SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE!).

Because while Shakespeare isn’t read for fun by many anymore, a lot of films based on his work or his life (barely) are pretty popular, and not all that highbrow.

WordSpinner
WordSpinner
8 years ago

@ ithiliana

That’s why I love seeing Shakespeare performed. They always underline the sex jokes. I heard (on TvTropes, but it makes sense) that “Much Ado About Nothing” has a sex joke in the title–“Nothing” being slang for the vulva and vagina. Is this accurate? It certainly sounds like something Shakespeare would do, and it is a perfect pun for a play on supposed unchastity (she is chaste, therefore it is a big ado about nothing, but it is also about her genitals, so it is much ado about… uh… nothing).

My class had a similar experience reading John Donne’s “The Flea”, which is about the speaker trying to convince his girlfriend to have sex even though they are not married. As my teacher said, “If you’re laughing, that means you get it.”

Ithiliana
8 years ago

@WordSpinner: I learned in my Shakespeare courses (and I took every single one as an undergraduate from the two faculty who taught it, plus sonnets, plus other elizabethan plays) that “Much Ado About Nothing” was a sexual reference: no thing being zero which symbolizes the vagina/emptiness!

I also fondly remember the Shakespeare midterm question “What does the “IT” in “As You Like It” refer to!) (As I recall my very lengthy enthusiastic answer was SEX! It refers to Sex! And I got an A! Yay! )

Performed Shakespeare is wonderful — it’s too bad that so many English professors have worked so hard to kill the love for Shakespeare (and as an English professor, I claim the right to say it).

Alex
8 years ago

@Holly,

“When you’ve been on your feet for twelve hours, forms of entertainment that “stimulate your mind!” aren’t necessarily what you’re looking for; when you’re cooking and cleaning and chasing the kids around and just want something in the background to keep you less-bored, you can’t very well read a book.”

I kind of disagree with this. I used to live in a working class family and many times had to be the one looking after my younger siblings as well as doing chores and going to school. At my current minimum wage job, I have often done weeks long stints of overtime sometimes reaching well over ten hours a day. Despite all that, it’s never stopped me from reading a book. People relax in different ways.

That said, not everyone’s an intellectual or likes reading, so in some cases TV may very well be the only way people have of winding down (I personally watch only one show once a week and nothing more, but that’s just me). But again, I don’t think it’s appropriate to state that at the end of a busy day, one can’t read a book because stimulating one’s mind is too hard at that point. Doesn’t square with my experience, where reading was relaxing because of the mental stimulation I had otherwise not gotten during the rest of the day (school and work included).

Falconer
Falconer
8 years ago

@ithiliana: Sorry. That was a knee-jerk reaction, and ill-considered on my part.

Pax?

Ithiliana
8 years ago

@Falconer: total pax! And I wouldn’t be surprised if my “knowledge” was out of date (last time I took a Shakespeare class was probably in 1980). And I’m sure what I said was way oversimplified!

Falconer
Falconer
8 years ago

@Ithiliana: Well, all’s I’ve got is a B.A. in Lit. and no formal theatre history so it seemed like I pulled the tiger’s tail. A tiger with three masters.

And with the degree of reading comprehension I just exhibited, it’s a wonder I’ve even got so useless a degree as I have.

Alex
8 years ago

More on TV, some of the shows are good, don’t get me wrong. As I said, there is one I watch once a week, and there are probably more I might enjoy, but I just don’t have the interest to flip through channels until I find something I like. My main problem with TV (aside from the sexism, racism, etc.) is the constant commercials! Even, when you try to catch an episode on the net, it’s broken up and there are commercials between it (at least if you do it legally). The only commercials I enjoy are trailers for movies. I HATE commercials. I hate the repetition; I hate the interruption of what I’m watching; I hate the lack of creativity; the sexism, racism, etc.. So unless the show is good enough to endure all that, I’ll take a movie or a book any day.

princessbonbon
8 years ago

There is a reason I still buy TV show DVD sets Alex even though most of them are online now. Commercials.

Falconer
Falconer
8 years ago

@Alex: Amen to hating commercials! I don’t know if this is true for all of the country, but all the PBS stations I’ve seen don’t interrupt their programs with commercials. Then you get ten or fifteen straight minutes between the end of one program and the top of the hour.

I’m not sure how the BBC does it. Do they have commercials? All the BBC programs I’ve ever seen lack commercial breaks. Watching SyFy (uuurrrggghhh) butcher Doctor Who so I can get sold Cialis is irritating, to say the least, and sometimes they put in a commercial break at the minimum 10 minute interval regardless of the dramatic tone of the episode at the moment.

LBT
LBT
8 years ago

RE: Alex

That’s why I buy DVD sets of the TV shows I like! No commercials, and I can watch Justice League and stuff whenever I like!

Also, we live in an oppressive society. It’s going to saturate all media. I mean, I heart superhero comics, but… they’re really REALLY nasty.

–Sneak (who’s borrowing Rogan’s account w/permission ^_^)

Ithiliana
8 years ago

@Falconer: Eh, I was a professional student for quite a while (see, there was this unemployment problem in the early 1980s, and people with college degrees couldn’t get jobs, and I could keep getting hired as a TA, and the salary then covered my very very very cheap needs–a lot of years, I earned about 5K), and I like school. So I just kept going! But the point still stands–a lot of what I learned then is totally out of date now.

I had great fun assigning all the films in my intro to lit courses; plus the play! Three Hamlets! And my students would tell me that they would get teased at the video store, and have to show the syllabus to prove they weren’t trying to “cheat” in their English class by watching the film–this was in the 90s–but I couldn’t possibly teach a Shakespeare class on any but the most introductory level now.

Ithiliana
8 years ago

@Alex: I have a book handy, and we mute the commercials except the ones we like (what can I say, we’re GECKO fans), and analyze the commercials, but yeah MUTE!!!

And reading during the big chunks of crappy ones.

Polliwog
Polliwog
8 years ago

Alex – while I’m a huge bookworm and don’t disagree with your essential point about finding time to read, I think maybe you misread what Holly said. It wasn’t “after you’ve finished cooking and cleaning and chasing the kids around and just want something in the background to keep you less-bored,” it was “when you’re cooking and cleaning and chasing the kids around and just want something in the background to keep you less-bored.” It’s not that your mind is too tired, it’s that reading a book generally requires at least one free hand to hold the friggin’ book. :-p

Falconer
Falconer
8 years ago

Three Hamlets!

Which three? Not Gibson’s, I hope, unless you’re trying to teach folks how not to do Shakespeare.

I ask, realizing that the sheer staggering number of movies of Hamlet out there means I probably haven’t seen all three of them….

Alex
8 years ago

@Polliwog,

Yeah, you’re right. Missed the tense, I guess. Sorry to Holly, then. Personally, though, again in my experience, I’d sometimes have music playing in the background rather than the television. I like to focus on things, and it’s just inconvenient to go back and forth between doing chores and seeing what’s happening on the TV. It’s one of the reason I don’t like it when a TV is playing at a restaurant; it’s enough to be distracting, but there’s too much else going on to actually focus on the show, which I don’t want to do in the first place because I’m there to eat out and converse with family or friends, not watch TV.

Regarding DVD sets, the problem is I’d have to know I’ll like the show first, which means watching it on TV, because those DVD sets can be damned expensive (at least the ones for the shows I like seem to be -_-).

Ithiliana
8 years ago

@Falconer: Branagh, Olivier, and yes, Gibson. I wanted to emphasize how different interpretations of the play could be made and defended (or not) on various grounds. You will be glad to know that the class generally did not like the Gibson; however, they found the Olivier (unintentionally) hilarious. It was an intro to lit taught with a genre approach as a general humanities course, so the idea was to give them some basic approaches on how to move beyond personal response and analyze literature.

Another year, I did a Harry Potter film first (film is a genre), then the HP novel, and some poetry (we had this sort of three genre thing going). Students loved it–the HP fans adored it, and the people who never read HP said they’d be interested to see what the controversy was about.

Another time I did Romeo and Juliet (my least favorite play) with Zefferelli (sp may be all wrong), and Luhrman’s to version (I adore Luhrman’s — my students uniformly hated it, and it led to some interesting discussions).

Hippodameia
Hippodameia
8 years ago

They didn’t like Luhrman’s version? I thought it was one of the better ones.

I took a year-long class on Shakespeare in college and really had a lot of fun. We did do five versions of Hamlet in a week, though, and that was enough Hamlet for a while.

BlackBloc
BlackBloc
8 years ago

>>Regarding DVD sets, the problem is I’d have to know I’ll like the show first, which means watching it on TV

There are… methods… of seeing TV shows on your computer that will allow you to sample the wares, as it were.

katz
8 years ago

You guys are Luhrman’s R+J fans? I always feel like I need to put on riot gear before I tell people I liked that version. (But I did.)

Jake Hamby (@jhamby)
8 years ago

Hipster anti-TV sentiment from Mr. Show:

http://youtu.be/XCumH8LRo1A?t=1m8s

If you haven’t seen Mr. Show, the skits all segue into each other like Monty Python and similar shows, so the first half of this particular clip is a random recurring Bob Odenkirk dumb-ass ass-hole character. The link start playing at the relevant bit.

Jake Hamby (@jhamby)
8 years ago

Start the clip from 1:08 for the hipster bit. Looks like wordpress ate the starting time when it embedded the video.

ozymandias42
8 years ago

Ozy Has Thoughts On TV.

My family was very anti-TV when we grew up. In our house, the television was on when someone wanted to see a show that they were a fan of and off most of the time. So I never developed the skill of half-watching the TV. Whenever it’s on in other people’s houses I tend to focus all my attention on it; if I’m doing chores I’ll often stop what I’m doing to watch if I’m even remotely interested. So while I kind of understand Holly’s point about having it on in the background while doing chores, man, give me my music. 🙂

My primary problem with watching TV is that I’m far too easily distracted in visual mediums. My usual attention span, if I am not watching it with someone else, is about twenty minutes. So if I want to watch something that isn’t MLP I have to recruit someone else to watch it with me and talk about it while we’re watching. My problem is that people keep telling me about quality TV and I keep being unable to view it because no one will watch it with me. 😛

I pretty much just watch TV on my computer. Computers are awesome.

tl;dr: Ozy does not like TV, still thinks TV is cool.

Kavette
Kavette
8 years ago

In our house the t.v goes on for various reasons. Like a show we like, background noise while cooking or puttering, cuddling time, etc. Pretty much when we are home for one reason or another a t.v somewhere is on. We are huge jazz fans and we do listen to a lot of music, while having dinner or when people are over, etc.

People are all weird and different from each other. We don’t need to like the same thing, nor does one thing need to be better then the other.

What I don’t get is people who spend 4 to 12 hours online a day and then say they hate television. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. It’s like your junk brain rot is better then someone elses. Never mind video games, I have nothing against them but we don’t play them and I’ve seen more then a few anti-t.v people who can spend hours a day playing them

Yes there are people who can spend hours online only surfing news worthy brain heightening material. There are also t.v people who only watch the likes of PBS. I’d say they are about even and both should just get over themselves, myself I read manboobz (great but not really enlightened stuff) and tune into house hunters international (also the same) at about the same hour per week rate.

I’d say if you are reading this and think you’re too enlightened for t.v then perhaps you should turn off your computer or video games and read another book, but not a light book….. only real literature for you.

indifferentsky
8 years ago

Oh look what TV show is his favorite.

elizabethtreehugger
elizabethtreehugger
8 years ago

UGH! I hate this stuff. Women are expected o not mind watching male-centered shows (which are often fine and well!) but some people act like female-centered shows are lesser and men should have, and would have no interest in them.

Yeah, Kavette. The “I never watch TV and am so much better because of that” people are annoying. Unless the reason you never watch TV is because you haven’t the time because you are curing cancer or feeding starving children in Africa all day, I really don’t think there is a need to be pretentious about it. Also, I don’t think the cancer researchers and children feeders have the time to look down on people watching TV anyway. They’re actually busy doing something.

Sorry, off topic…

TGMoxley
TGMoxley
8 years ago

Regarding Shakespeare, drama and class issues:

You could only be a playing company in London in Shakespeare’s time if you had noble patronage. The entire public theare was propped up by the legal fiction that it was not a commercial enterprise but was instead a way for the companies to rehearse their plays so they could be performed at court. It was, of course, a wildly popular and profitable (for some) form of mass entertainment as well, but it was understood that the only thing keeping the industry from being shut down by city authorities was the fact that it had the support of the crown.

So as far as drama being a prestigious art form… it’s kind of a mixed bag. People thought Ben Johnson was giving himself more credit than he deserved as a simple playwright by having his plays published in folio, and Thomas Bodley didn’t collect plays for his library. On the other hand, when your company is literally called The King’s Men you’re not exactly a full-fledged populist.

Falconer
Falconer
8 years ago

@Katz: Luhrmann’s R+J was the first date I ever went on, so I have some sentimental connection to it. But I thought the modern-day conceit was a bit much, perhaps. Certainly I’m not going to beat people up about it.

@Ithiliana: We had to do Branagh’s Hamlet in something like three sittings. I enjoyed it immensely.

Just something about Gibson’s Hamlet irritated me. I guess I’m blind to its artistic merits.

I haven’t seen Olivier’s Hamlet although I have watched his opening soliloquy from Richard III and loved it to pieces. I have seen his Othello and I remember thinking, at the time, why didn’t they get a black guy? But I was, like, twelve.

LBT
LBT
8 years ago

RE: Falconer

Saw Branagh’s Hamlet in high school. Very enjoyable, but oh god, does Branagh put the HAM in Hamlet!

RE: TV

I myself can’t really watch TV easily, because it is a black hole of all my attention. Doesn’t matter what’s playing, it could be a damn BANK commercial, I’ll still stare at it and have a really difficult time focusing on anything else. It’s TOO immersive for me. Like, sometimes that’s a good thing for me, but rarely. I’ve never been able to understand how other people can have it as a “background noise” thing. Augh, I’d go insane! (My aunts and uncles are like this; as a result I always navigate around their home so my back is to the TV as much as possible.)

Internet is also distracting, but at least the pages (the ones I look at anyway) tend not to move, or make noise. So I can, y’know. NOT be completely devoured by it.

Anyone who thinks TV is inferior to books has obviously never watched “Spirited Away,” after reading “The Haunted Vagina,” that’s all I’m saying. But then, I have to argue with pretentious brats who think comics are intrinsically inferior to prose.

Sharculese
Sharculese
8 years ago

I had great fun assigning all the films in my intro to lit courses; plus the play! Three Hamlets! And my students would tell me that they would get teased at the video store, and have to show the syllabus to prove they weren’t trying to “cheat” in their English class by watching the film–this was in the 90s

yes! i’ve never understood english teachers who see shakespeare as a thing that’s primarily there to be read. it’s a play! you’re meant to see it!

and now a lot of kids have almost everything they’re reading available in some form to stream on netflix. when i was in theater history that service was still in it’s infant stages, but now i think i can find half my syllabus on there. just the other day i realized i can stream marat/sade.

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

@Alex

I’m not sure where you are, but if you have netflix available to you it’s pretty cheap and I think there’re no commercials (not sure).

I remember seeing the Laz Buhrmann version of R+J in secondary school, after reading the play. I wasn’t all that impressed with the play, but the whole modern renditioning seemed so corny at the time, I couldn’t stop laughing. I haven’t rewatched it since, so I don’t know if I’ll have a more favourable opinion. But as it stands right now: dear God, was that cheesy!

Kite
Kite
8 years ago

Studying Shakespeare in high school, we watched a stack of movies, sometimes studied along with the books or just as an example of how they sound to an audience. Most of us thought that R&J was fantastic (!! Mercutio in drag!)…although it got a bit much when our teacher would pause the tv whenever Leonardo came up on screen to sigh over the pretty.

That said, I did have another English teacher talk about Colin Firth’s “crisp English chest hairs” while studying the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice in conjunction with the book. D:

TGMoxley
TGMoxley
8 years ago

@Sharculese

It depends on the objectives of the course. Students, both of the high school and university undergraduate levels, tend not to grasp a lot of what goes on in Shakespeare (and a lot of literature in general) on their first pass through it – they can follow the plot and enjoy the play, but they can get that just as easily outside the classroom. If your goal is to get them thinking/talking about the language of the play (most university English classes strive to teach close reading/critical thinking/analytical writing) I find that it’s best to make them go through it line by line (and make them watch it several times, and make them act it out themselves, and all the other things I would like to do if schools would only give me the time and resources to do them).

Oh yeah, and printed editions of Shakespeare’s plays sold like hotcakes during Shakespeare’s own lifetime, so even people who had the opportunity to see a Shakespeare on opening night saw plenty of value in just sitting down and reading the darned things too.

Creative Writing Student
Creative Writing Student
8 years ago

I’m just disappointed that schools aren’t issued human skulls when doing Hamelt. I had to improvise and do the ‘Alas, poor Yorkic’ speech to a whitreboard rubber.

Also, I celeberated a friend’s brithday party, which explains the spelling.

darksidecat
8 years ago

I’m just disappointed that schools aren’t issued human skulls when doing Hamelt. I had to improvise and do the ‘Alas, poor Yorkic’ speech to a whitreboard rubber.

When I was like 12,my brother had this string of plastic skulls that came with one of his action figure monster guys and I tried to make them give the speech. No one else got the joke. I was such a nerdy child.

Dave
Dave
8 years ago

I think there’s a lot of value to reading plays, especially stuff like Shakespeare and even some of the best of the modern stuff like Samuel Beckett, Suzan Lori-Parks, etc. You can slow down and take your own time, get every word. Anyway, the text is Shakespeare himself- everything beyond that is someone else’s contribution.

And also, come on. High school kids pretty much don’t read unless you make them. It’s a matter of priority.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Really, Dave? All high-school kids need to be forced to read? I know I hung out with the drama geeks, but no one had to make us to read.

Ithiliana
8 years ago

@Dave: Anyway, the text is Shakespeare himself- everything beyond that is someone else’s contribution.

You don’t know much about the textual history of Shakespeare’s works, or what high school textbooks do to ’em, do you?

Also, how much teaching experience do you have?