For what purpose does memorizing Shakespeare serve?
Shakespeare is clever, bawdy, and often amusing, and you have to be even more clever to understand it. A lot his wordplay is based on idioms no longer in active use.
'Tis all one, I will show myself a tyrant: when I
have fought with the men, I will be cruel with the
maids, and cut off their heads.
GREGORY
The heads of the maids?
SAMPSON
Ay, the heads of the maids, or their maidenheads;
take it in what sense thou wilt.
'Maidenheads' as a colloquial term for a woman's virginity (or more crudely, her hymen).
Or Act 1, Scene 3
NURSE
And since that time it is eleven years;
For then she could stand alone; nay, by the rood,
She could have run and waddled all about;
For even the day before, she broke her brow:
And then my husband--God be with his soul!
A' was a merry man--took up the child:
'Yea,' quoth he, 'dost thou fall upon thy face?
Thou wilt fall backward when thou hast more wit;
Wilt thou not, Jule?' and, by my holidame,
The pretty wretch left crying and said 'Ay.'
To see, now, how a jest shall come about!
I warrant, an I should live a thousand years,
I never should forget it: 'Wilt thou not, Jule?' quoth he;
And, pretty fool, it stinted and said 'Ay.'
The nurse is speaking of her husband and Juliet. As a small child, she 'waddled all about', fell on her face and 'broke her bow'. The husband asks, amused -- when you have more wit, will you not fall on your back? The young Juliet clearly innocently replies 'Ay', likely sending everyone tittering -- to fall on her back when she has more wit is an oblique reference to her having sex (on her back) when she's older (has more wit).
It's crude, inappropriate, and -- at least to me -- pretty damn funny, in the story's context. It also has a hell of a lot to do with "words arranged in a particular order", and the nuances of the meanings of words. Memorizing it forces you to study the text more deeply than you likely have before.
I've never made use of Shakespeare as a programmer, but I still remember reading his works in school -- and the significant appreciation I had for the art and cleverness of it. I even memorized the entire Queen Mab Speech for extra credit (I'm glad I didn't refuse!). It did help that I went to a private school where the teacher was intelligent enough to explain the word-play to us, and didn't avoid the less appropriate aspects of it.
I read and understood the Queen Mab speech more thoroughly than any other passage in Shakespeare when memorizing it. I didn't find it pointless.
Even so, as merely a mental exercise it was perfectly valid. When is the last time you exercised your mind by trying to commit that amount of data to recallable memory?
Strange. I don't get anything out of memorizing data and just find it to be an extremely difficult chore. I prefer to understand things on a conceptual level. I don't see how it's valid as a "mental exercise"; we could have you memorize some arbitrary sequence of digits. We could also have you spend the rest of eternity rolling a rock up a hill a la Sisyphus.
I think the conclusion is just that you and I have learning styles that work very differently.
Strange. I don't get anything out of memorizing data and just find it to be an extremely difficult chore.
It's not "data", it's Shakespeare. Memorizing and reciting Shakespeare is quite a bit different than doing the same with an arbitrary sequence of digits.
We could also have you spend the rest of eternity rolling a rock up a hill a la Sisyphus.
We could, and while it the first few weeks might teach me some lessons in Zen, it's still not the same thing as Shakespeare.
I think the conclusion is just that you and I have learning styles that work very differently.
It's pretty difficult to commit that much text to memory without reading it inside and out. Comprehending it also makes it considerably easier to remember it.
Seems like you just want to be contrary here, but have never actually spent time remembering and reciting spoken word.
Regardless of the content or meaning of any text, you can memorize it without understanding it. Memorizing may be a proxy for understanding it (you have to read it over and over again), but it is not the same process at all. If you can recite Godel's incompleteness theorem verbatim from memory, does it mean you understand it? Similarly, you can memorize verbatim the Wikipedia article on String Theory, but does it mean you understand it? All you have committed to memory are the words which are pointers to concepts and places and bodies of knowledge (among other things), but unless you understand what those words mean (unless you dereference those pointers), the text is meaningless and opaque. Having memorized X lines from anything is a 'cool' feat to some people, but it's an entirely orthogonal endeavor from understanding what the text means.
Edit: Also, just because someone repeatedly disagrees with you, it does not mean they 'just want to be contrary'.
Having memorized X lines from anything is a 'cool' feat to some people, but it's an entirely orthogonal endeavor from understanding what the text means.
I hold that there's an understanding to be found in Shakespeare in both memorizing and reciting it, and that it impacts you in a far more lasting way than merely studying it.
Would you admit that writing a paper about a passage is more likely to result in your recollection of the meaning of a passage?
What about spending a week after school memorizing that passage? It is also likely to engender that level of recollection and comprehension?
It did, for me. I remember the Queen Mab speech to this day, and that memory seared into my brain serves as the anchor point for many additional recollections I have of studying Shakespeare. I don't have the same level of recollection for any other books I studied in school, from Heart of Darkness to Catcher in the Rye.
Edit: Also, just because someone repeatedly disagrees with you, it does not mean they 'just want to be contrary'.
Given that I'm effectively arguing in favor of my personal experience, and the individual in question has none to draw from and is merely extrapolating from off-the-cuff opinion, I'd say they're just being contrary.
The main point I'm trying to make is that one _can_ memorize something and not understand what it means. And one can understand something without having memorized it verbatim. If you accept this, then it follows that memorization and understanding are orthogonal.
One can memorize something and not understand it. One can understand something and not have it memorized. This is not a subjective claim. Memorizing may have helped you understand, but objectively (if you follow the previous logic), it's not a necessary component of understanding.
and the individual in question has none to draw from and is merely extrapolating from off-the-cuff opinion
The main point I'm trying to make is that one _can_ memorize something and not understand what it means. And one can understand something without having memorized it verbatim. If you accept this, then it follows that memorization and understanding are orthogonal.
Ergo, your teacher's assignment was stupid because you can go through the motions without actually taking advantage of the opportunity. QED.
By that measure, you might as well drop out.
Snark (and your painfully affected over-use of "orthogonal") aside, the two aren't orthogonal if memorization aids in understanding, and understanding aids in memorization, and both aid in long-term recollection.
That's assuming that every course I take is like that. If that's what school means to you, you're really missing out on the purpose of education.
the two aren't orthogonal if memorization aids in understanding, and understanding aids in memorization, and both aid in long-term recollection.
If my goal is to get to my house, and I am standing 10 meters from it in the diagonal, I must traverse ground both in the x and y directions. If the goal is long term recollection, a combination of memorization and understanding is necessary.
If my goal is to get to my house, and I am standing 10 meters from it in the diagonal, I must traverse ground both in the x and y directions. If the goal is long term recollection, a combination of memorization and understanding is necessary.
You're behaving with impetuousness of youth if you lack the insight to see the purpose of the assignment and thus assume there is none.
Yet, your teacher was wise to give you a pass on the assignment, because there's no value in harming you grade when someone isn't interested and doesn't see the point in something merely edifying. It is, after all, your loss, but it's not a great one.
Amusingly, however, you've probably spent more effort bandying about this example as proof of your intelligence and the creativity destroying nature of school than it would of actually taken to memorize the text to begin with.
I note that you latched on to the one comment here that would support your own opinion of your own relative intelligence -- the one that posited that memorization served as a proxy for the understanding of the text for students that couldn't understand it; thus, you required no proxy and clearly are more intelligent than the those who did require one.
At the exclusive (no low-IQ or low-performing students need apply) private school I attended, memorization and recitation in front of the class was provided as an extra credit assignment for those students who were especially interested in the text, not as some sort of booby prize for the non-existent less intelligent among us.
Wow. Riding pretty hard with the personal attacks. Anyway:
You're behaving like an impetuous child if you lack the insight to see the purpose of the assignment and instead assume that the goal of it is exactly what you decide it is.
Why do you assume the assignment has reasonable purpose? The teacher specifically said that this would be a good way to raise one's grade, "to get a nice fat A in the gradebook before the year comes to an end". School isn't a game to me. Asking someone to memorize something is a shitty way to get them to really think about what they're memorizing. Why not ask them to write a paper or lead a discussion about it? There are many better ways.
It is, after all, your loss.
That's quite presumptuous of you. That would assume the time I would have spent memorizing those lines was the optimal use of my time. In case you're interested, I spent that time studying for my AP tests. And hey, my lowest score was a 4 in chemistry and I'm going into college with 23 credits. You can decide if that was a loss.
You've probably spent more effort bandying about this example as proof of your intelligence and the ridiculous creativity destroying nature of school than it would of actually taken to memorize the text.
Even if that were true, so what? What point are you trying to make?
I'd be curious to know what your major is/was in college.
"I note that you latched on to the one comment here that would support your own opinion of your own relative intelligence -- the one that posited that memorization served as a proxy for the understanding of the text for students that couldn't understand it; thus, you required no proxy and clearly are more intelligent than the those who did require one."
Just because I don't need to memorize something to understand it does not mean I am more intelligent. I don't understand why you've turned this into some attempt of mine to self-aggrandize. If you find that memorizing something forces you to understand it, great - I'm happy that works for you but understand that the understanding of the text is the end-goal. My point is that whether or not you've memorized something has nothing to do with whether or not you understand it. I think a real problem is that you don't understand that one can understand something without having memorized it first.
At the exclusive (no low-IQ or low-performing students need apply) private school I attended, memorization and recitation in front of the class was provided as an extra credit assignment for those students who were especially interested in the text, not as some sort of booby prize for the non-existent less intelligent among us.
I'm seriously glad I didn't go to your school. But I see now why you believe so adamantly in the virtues of memorization since it has so clearly defined your idea of academic success. The fact that your school handed out extra credit for reciting back text is ridiculous. That basically defeats any meaning a GPA would have.
[Edit: And wow can you stop editing your comments so wildy? If you have something new to say, hit the reply link]
I've found that process of deciphering Shakespeare is as exhilarating as attempting to comprehend a new topic in mathematics. It feels like I'm using the same parts of my brain. I do really enjoy reading and understanding Shakespeare.
Memorizing Shakespeare, though, has nothing to do with this process. Of course one needs a working memory of the text to put it all in context, but rote memorization of a passage is orthogonal to understanding it.
Asking students to memorize Shakespeare is a proxy for asking them to understand it. By asking them to memorize it, anyone with an intellect and an interest will take the opportunity to study it, while still leaving incapable students with a way to make the grade.
If you don't think that incapable high school students ought to have a way to make the grade, you have a problem with a lot more than this teacher's assignment.
That said, I think there are much worse things a teenager could do with his time than simply memorizing passages of literature. The art that lives in my mind has given me great comfort and inspiration already in my short life.
That's an interesting perspective. I think you may be right. The problem is that, when I've understood a passage from Shakespeare -- really understood it -- I still cannot recite it verbatim. I can tell you what it means, I could write a paper on it if you wanted me to, but memorizing it and being able to repeat it back to you word for word has nothing to do with my understanding of it. So, in my experience, it's a really poor proxy to assess one's understanding of the text.
Memorizing Shakespeare, though, has nothing to do with this process. Of course one needs a working memory of the text to put it all in context, but rote memorization of a passage is orthogonal to understanding it.
I can only say that memorizing a large passage of shakespeare was demanding and interesting to me in ways I hadn't anticipated, yet still easier than I expected, and the passage and (positive) experience has stuck with me since junior high school (... and that's a long time).
Shakespeare is clever, bawdy, and often amusing, and you have to be even more clever to understand it. A lot his wordplay is based on idioms no longer in active use.
Take, for example, Act 1, Scene 1 (http://www.shakespeare-literature.com/Romeo_and_Juliet/2.htm...)
SAMPSON
GREGORY SAMPSON 'Maidenheads' as a colloquial term for a woman's virginity (or more crudely, her hymen).Or Act 1, Scene 3
NURSE
The nurse is speaking of her husband and Juliet. As a small child, she 'waddled all about', fell on her face and 'broke her bow'. The husband asks, amused -- when you have more wit, will you not fall on your back? The young Juliet clearly innocently replies 'Ay', likely sending everyone tittering -- to fall on her back when she has more wit is an oblique reference to her having sex (on her back) when she's older (has more wit).It's crude, inappropriate, and -- at least to me -- pretty damn funny, in the story's context. It also has a hell of a lot to do with "words arranged in a particular order", and the nuances of the meanings of words. Memorizing it forces you to study the text more deeply than you likely have before.
I've never made use of Shakespeare as a programmer, but I still remember reading his works in school -- and the significant appreciation I had for the art and cleverness of it. I even memorized the entire Queen Mab Speech for extra credit (I'm glad I didn't refuse!). It did help that I went to a private school where the teacher was intelligent enough to explain the word-play to us, and didn't avoid the less appropriate aspects of it.