By John Fedele

In Sunday’s Opinion Page in the Journal, I seem to have ruffled more feathers with my statement, “I don’t see why we spend so much time on Shakespeare and those guys.”

Ex-English teachers are just too sensitive.

The article would have been great if the subject was just about “those guys and gals”, what their works mean and why we study them (a statement that should be in the syllabus of the English literature course) or maybe we should move those works out of the English department and into the Psychology or Philosophy departments. But, to imply that I am not educated enough to be a candidate for school board seems a bit harsh.

Since the writer of the “Opinion” was not in the room at the time of the interview, the questions and remarks that led up to the quoted statement are unknown to the writer. That is why one should not comment on things taken out of context.

In high school, I was not subjected to “those guys and gals.” As a “Vo-Tech dummy”, that’s what the intelligentsia of the day called us, our english literature course consisted of works by London, Robert W. Service, and yes even Fitzerald, and Salinger. We read them for the story, not for any spiritual or moral meanings. Later in life, some of us may have realized the correlation.

Based upon my years in the classroom and relations with my students, I think today’s students are pretty much the same as my old ones, they just don’t like Shakespeare.

If the book censors of today, who want to rewrite Huck Finn and the Bible, would really like to do kids a favor, they would rewrite all of Shakespeare’s stuff using today’s English.

Maybe then the kids wouldn’t moan when the teacher announces, “this semester we will be studying the works of Shakespeare.”