Murari Prasad writes back to Prof. MNK Bose’s response [Archives:2005/858/Education]
By Murari Prasad
Faculty of Education, Sada'a
Sana'a University
[email protected]
Thank you Prof Bose so much for your response (Yemen Times, 4 July 2005) to my report on the Sana'a Shakespeare Seminar ( Yemen Times, 20 June 2005). To begin with, I don't think I sought to undermine your presentation)I daren't) or Dr Sharyan's, for that matter. I was only reacting to the points of view in the submissions from my own perspective which is certainly not a mandatory one. I do believe that we can reach a better perspective on Shakespeare studies in our context by way of fruitful disagreements as well as agreeable fruits of argument. In the event, I find your clarification, I'm afraid to say, less than compelling as regards any retraction/alteration/modification/revision in my point of view, and so I reiterate that Shakespeare is worth teaching in Yemeni universities to produce language gains. When I say that, I do not endorse the teachers' version of Shakespeare; in fact, in one of the seminar sessions to which you have probably referred we argued against the 'mug-book syndrome' that the orthodox method of doing Shakespeare has degenerated into. In the seminar report, I didn't have the space to cite an excerpt from a Shakespearean play to press the point of teachability. Let me do it now, and you be the judge: this is a letter from Antonio to Bassanio in The Merchant of Venice (II, ii):
Antonio: Sweet Bassanio, my ships have all miscarried, my creditors grow cruel, my estate is very low, my bond to the Jew is forfeit; and since, in paying it, it is impossible I should live, all debts are cleared between you and I, if I might but see you at my death: notwithstanding, use your pleasure; if your love do not persuade you to come, let not my letter.
At first blush, it might seem that Shakespeare and modern English don't mesh. But they do mesh. I bet this extract is quite accessible to our students. They may need some help to get into, but where they don't. Further, by what standards of text analysis would you describe it as a construction of “grandiose and magnitude[sic!]”. 95 per cent of Shakespeare is just like this in both vocabulary and grammar. Also, we have a course in history of the English language. Teaching it with Shakespearean examples is an enormous plus to our calculus.
Again, what are your criteria for assessing the acceptability of a Shakespearean text? How do they fit in with those in the selection of literature component in our curriculum? You say that the pipeline approach of teaching English is the ” lifeline approach”. Fine. In that case, what should we aim at becoming : a lifestyler or a mere survivor? Why should we serve bland cabbage, when our consumers can afford appetizing cauliflower? Why substitute a dull catalogue for a lively dialogue? Why leave something splendid and plump for plain insipid? Should our students build a beautiful set of bookshelves or should they only learn how to use a hammer and screwdriver? Well, I can go on and on, but we all know that brevity is the soul of wit ( sorry Prof. Bose, there is no getting away from the Bard's lines), and the powers that be responsible for this page won't allow any extra inch. Insha Allah, we can resume the debate after the recess. Right now the time is against us.
——
[archive-e:858-v:13-y:2005-d:2005-07-11-p:education]
