The second play of the trilogy is called The Libation Bearers and takes place about seven years after the events in Agamemnon. In it, Agamemnon's son Orestes is ordered by the god Apollo to avenge his father, so he returns to Argos and plots with his sister Electra to kill both their mother Clytemnestra and stepdad Aegisthus. He proceeds to carry out their plan and is successful, though he does have some hesitation about killing his mother, which he soon overcomes. For the crime of committing matricide, however, the Furies (goddesses of vengeance) descend on Orestes, forcing him to flee.
While at my nephew's 15th birthday party, I had a look at the reading he's currently doing for (home) school. Aeschylus was a Greek playwright who lived in the 5th century BC. He was quite prolific, having written, it is believed, between 70- 90 plays over the course of his life although sadly, only seven of them survive today. He managed to write all these while intermittently fighting in the Persian Wars, defending Athens against Darius I- at the Battle of Marathon, no less- and against Xerxes I at the Battle of Salamis and again at the Battle of Palataea. Besides the historical significance of these battles, they also provided fodder for Aeschylus' plays; one of his surviving works is entitled The Persians, and the Battle of Salamis figures prominently in it. Oresteia is a trilogy of plays written by Aeschylus, based around the Trojan War, specifically the murder of Agamemnon, who returns from the war just in time to get murdered (stabbed in his bathtub long before Marat got around to it) by his wife Clytemnestra (twin sister to Helen of Troy) and her lover Aegisthus (whose family had mostly been murdered by Agamemnon's father... it's complicated). Clytemnestra hated her husband because he had sacrificed their daughter Iphigenia to appease the gods in order to be successful in battle. It probably didn't help that he also came back from the war with his concubine Cassandra in tow; she also ends up dead. This happens in the first play entitled, sensibly enough, Agamemnon. The second play of the trilogy is called The Libation Bearers and takes place about seven years after the events in Agamemnon. In it, Agamemnon's son Orestes is ordered by the god Apollo to avenge his father, so he returns to Argos and plots with his sister Electra to kill both their mother Clytemnestra and stepdad Aegisthus. He proceeds to carry out their plan and is successful, though he does have some hesitation about killing his mother, which he soon overcomes. For the crime of committing matricide, however, the Furies (goddesses of vengeance) descend on Orestes, forcing him to flee. The third play The Eumenides picks up with Orestes being relentlessly pursued by the Furies. He gets some help from Apollo- which only seems fair, since it was his idea in the first place. Under the protection of Hermes, Orestes heads for Athens to plead his case before the goddess Athena. The Furies follow him there, egged on by Cltemnestra's ghost, who wants to see her son punished for killing her. Athena puts Orestes on trial, picking a group of twelve citizens of Athens to decide the case. At the end of the trial, they vote but it is a tie. Athena casts the tie breaking vote, and votes in favour of Orestes, sparing his life. The Furies are, well, furious, but Athena talks them down, convincing them to stop going about looking to wreak vengeance on people; she renames them The Eumenides (the Gracious Ones). Athena also declares that all trials must from now on be settled in court, not by people taking matters into their own hands.
Comments
I first read An Enemy of the People while I was in high school... not in class, mind you, but on my own from a book of plays we had at home. I've discussed a couple of the other plays from the collection before: Flight Into Danger and I Remember Mama. An Enemy Of The People is a play written by Henrik Ibsen in 1882. It was originally written in Norwegian and I've always meant to read a straight translation of the work but as of now have only read the version found in this book, which is the adaptation done by Arthur Miller in the 1950's. Why is this less than ideal? Well, because Miller was who he was- an avowed leftist- who interpreted the protagonist in a certain way, and removed anything "problematic" which would dispute that interpretation. Arthur Miller wrote, of course, The Crucible (1953), using the Salem Witch trials as an allegory for "McCarthyism", the US government's hunt for communists, most famously in Hollywood. The difference being that, while there were no actual witches in Salem, there certainly were communists- in Hollywood and elsewhere- who were up to no good. So while one might argue about means and methods, let's not kid ourselves here. Even when Miller attacked former friend Elia Kazan for naming names, he didn't deny what was going on; he merely called Kazan a "stool pigeon": "a person who provides privileged information, or (usually damaging) information intended to be intimate, concealed, or secret, about a person or organization to an agency, often a government or law enforcement agency". In any case, this was the lens through which Miller would, like so many others in the arts, view every bit of opposition or from then on: "McCarthyism!" reflexively being screeched whenever there was any pushback to whatever degeneracy was being championed. Miller even tried to say that Bill Clinton being investigated for having sex with an intern in the Oval Office was another "witch hunt". He was quickly challenged by Christopher Hitchens- no conservative- for this ludicrous suggestion; Hitchens went on to point out that, for someone so hyped about witch hunts silencing artists, Miller was curiously silent about the fatwa on Salman Rushdie. But of course, Miller was an infamous adulterer himself, having abandoned his wife and children to run off with Marilyn Monroe, so perhaps he just felt sympathy for Clinton. And whatever you think of Joseph McCarthy, he wasn't very likely to come leaping out at anyone- even a commie- with a machete or explosive fanny pack. So why are his political leanings a problem when it comes to Miller's adaptation of An Enemy Of The People? Well, it's clear that he identifies with the main character, Dr. Stockmann, who is persecuted for taking a stand for truth against his entire town (more on this when I discuss the plot in Part II). In Miller's mind, this is perhaps yet another framing of himself and others being called before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, so obviously Dr. Stockmann must be a principled, caring socialist. And so the man who wrote that character- Henrik Ibsen- must also be a progressive. And he was, in many ways, embracing a lot of the philosophies of the enlightened progressives of the time period. Unfortunately for Miller's sensibilities, one of these philosophies was about the virtues of eugenics, and Ibsen has the hero of his story eloquently and approvingly holding forth on the subject. The modern form of eugenics had come into vogue in the wake of the spread of Darwinism, becoming and remaining popular- especially amongst the intelligentia- throughout the late 1800's and early 1900's. Kudos, by the way, to men of principle and honour like GK Chesterton who vociferously spoke out against the evil philosophy from the start, without having to first witness the ghastly actions of Hitler and his minions as they took the practice of eugenics to its inevitable conclusion. Miller was adapting this play only a few years after the end of World War II, and to his credit, was horrified by Dr. Stockmann's (Ibsen's) statements on the topic. But, as is so often the case with those devoted to a particular world view, he was unable to entertain the thought- or at least, admit to entertaining it- that someone he regarded as a brother in arms, so to speak, in the progressive cause could also hold abhorrent beliefs. Besides communism, of course, which is abhorrent in its own special way. So Miller dealt with this moral conundrum by simply removing the problematic passages from the play. This is one of them: "The masses are nothing but the raw material that must be fashioned into the people. Is it not so with all other living creatures on earth? How great the difference between a cultivated and an uncultivated breed of animals!... Don't you believe that the brain of a poodle has developed quite differently from that of a mongrel? Yes, you may depend upon that! It is educated poodles like this that jugglers train to perform the most extraordinary tricks. A common peasant-cur could never learn anything of the sort—not if he tried till Doomsday... we are animals... there is a terrible difference between men-poodles and men-mongrels." Miller's justification for this was that Ibsen couldn't possibly have meant what he said because- wait for it- he was a feminist. I almost laughed out loud when I read this (it's in Miller's introduction to his adaptation): "In light of genocide, the holocaust that has swept our world on the wings of the black ideology of racism, it is inconceivable that Ibsen would insist today that certain individuals are by breeding, or race, or "innate" qualities superior to others or possessed of the right to dictate to others. The man who wrote A Doll's House, the clarion call for the equality of women, cannot be equated with a fascist." I'm afraid this argument does nothing for me; to paraphrase Westley in The Princess Bride, I've known too many feminists. A lot of them absolutely think that they have the right to dictate to others. Miller also said that Ibsen was too much of an individualist to ever back an authoritarian ideology, which was also a bit much to swallow, considering that he- Miller- was a communist sympathizer who wrote for Marxist papers under a pseudonym. I mean, you can't get much more authoritarian than the communists. But this sort of willful blindness about the faults of those on your side- and of you, yourself- is quite common, whatever side of the aisle you're on politically. It's very difficult to call balls and strikes evenhandedly, without bias. It's also difficult to admit that people you admire for one reason or another can be utterly wrong to the point of evil on other issues. Or that people can be complete and utter hypocrites, advocating for rights for one group while seeking to restrict/remove them from others. One need look no further than the COVID craziness to prove this point: more often than not, it was the Tolerance & Love crowd which was shouting loudest for unvaccinated citizens to have their rights stripped from them, some even advocating that the unvaxxed be denied medical treatment. This behaviour, I must say, is much less of a shock for those of us who believe in the total depravity of man. I am, however, wandering a wee bit off topic. Suffice to say, Ibsen was, like many of his time period, a eugenicist and Miller was uncomfortable with that so he removed the offending passages from the play. Which I think was a mistake; I think it would add an extra layer to the narrative to leave them in, even if it would be a layer that Ibsen himself didn't intend. Dr. Stockmann is supposed to be the hero of the play, and he is, standing up for truth against almost everyone else in his town. But to have him spouting this eugenics nonsense near the start of the play would make his character- and the plot- more complex. If he shows himself to be an elitist horse's heinie from the start, it would make it even more galling that he's right about the issue in question, and make it easier for people to deny that possibility. After all, if he's talking poppycock on one topic, why not another? I'll get into just what that issue is in part two of this review. Related Posts: At the halfway point in Dorothy Sayers' play cycle The Man Born To Be King, I thought I'd pause and give my thoughts on the first six plays. The version which I have been listening to is not the original 1941 radio play, but one recorded in 1967, though I believe it wasn't aired until 1975. I must say, the actor- John Westbrook- who voices Jesus is excellent; I looked him up... he was very active in live theatre, performing in a lot of Shakespearean plays as well as doing voice work. Just a bit of trivia: Westbrook also voiced Treebeard in the 1978 animated version of LOTR. On the topic of voices, pretty much every actor is British, not surprising since the plays were produced by the BBC. Interestingly, Sayers denotes different classes of people in The Man Born To Be King through the use of various English accents. For example, several of the fishermen/disciples have Cockney accents, while people of higher social standing sound as though they just came down from Oxford or Cambridge. I was surprised by how effective this was, though I did blink a little at Calpurnia's servant who- we're told- is Greek but has a very pronounced French accent. Overall, though, I think this worked. What was quite controversial at the time was not so much the voices as it was what they were saying. Audiences were used to Biblical plays using very formal language- as found in the King James Bible- and some were inclined to be scandalized by Sayers having her characters use plain spoken, modern English. Now, I am second to none in my admiration for the KJV- it's my version of choice for reading. The church I attend uses the ESV for over-the-pulpit reading, but I prefer my trusty old King James, in no small part because it was the version I did all my memorization from as a child, and it's what I know best. Plus I just love the sound of the language it contains. But Sayers' use of modern (1940s) English works very well and is no way disrespectful; she stays well away from cringe-inducing slang or anything else of that nature. Another thing I think works well in the plays is Sayers' portrayal of Judas- at least, so far. Her Judas is not an evil intentioned man from the start: he's a sincere follower of John the Baptist who switches to following Jesus after John's arrest. Indeed, several of the younger disciples see to really look up to him. But there are hints from the start about certain weaknesses in his character- a suspicion verging on paranoia of any seeming power or popularity Jesus has, as well as some instances when we get hints of a jealous nature which Judas endeavors to keep hidden. For example, at one point Phillip heals a person through the power of Jesus; he's thoroughly humbled and amazed by this, giving all praise to Jesus for the miracle. Judas however, seems a bit sour that it was young Phillip instead of himself who was able to do this, though he manages to conceal this for the most part. But it made me think of Cain and Abel, with Cain lashing out and killing his brother out of envy and anger over God's acceptance of Abel's sacrifice and rejection of Cain's. You begin to wonder if at least part of Judas' fear of Jesus being corrupted by power is based in a secret desire for importance himself. Jesus obviously sees the flaws which Judas tries to keep hidden; some of His comments to Iscariot are very pointed. Also, when they first meet, Jesus accepts Judas into his inner circle with almost an air of resignation, as if He knows where this will eventually lead. Others such as Caiaphas and Baruch the Zealot obviously can also see Judas' hidden flaws and seek to use them to their advantage. This bit of dialogue really struck me; it's when Baruch the Zealot is suggesting to Caiaphas that they try to turn Judas. Caiaphas asks if he is susceptible to threats or bribes and Baruch replies: "Not in the ordinary way, no; he has a subtle mind and would see through any crude methods to corrupt him. But he may be led into deceiving himself with specious arguments- that is the weakness of all clever people: intellectual dishonesty springing from intellectual pride, the sin by which Adam fell." These words could have been written about our era, as we are presented with numerous of examples of intellectual dishonesty and self-deception in public intellectuals, so-called, on a daily basis. I was pleased to find myself quite enjoying listening to The Man Born To Be King because at first, I wasn't sure that I was going to. It started out a little slow for me, probably mostly because I know these parts of the Bible so well that through the first parts it seemed like a bit of a retread of very familiar territory. But this is Sayers merely staging the scene and, once all of the key players are in place, her skill as a suspense writer becomes evident as she tells the miraculous tale of the Christ while weaving political maneuvering, religious scheming, and personal rivalries throughout the narrative. It's also interesting to see how the threat Jesus posed to the establishment led to some very strange bedfellows, so to speak. For example, we see Baruch and Caiaphas collaborating though they have very different motivations. While definitely scandalized by Jesus' radical teachings, Caiaphas also worries that He will stir up trouble with Rome, causing them all grief. Baruch on the other hand is a Zealot, a sect committed to the cause of violently overthrowing Roman rule. He opposes Jesus precisely because He shows no sign of wanting to fight against Rome, preaching instead a heavenly kingdom and loving one's enemies. This doesn't play well to either faction. But Jesus didn't come to make nice- be "winsome," as it were- or confirm everyone's pet political theories and religious beliefs. And so He doesn't. As play succeeds play, the tensions- and stakes- are slowly ratcheted up and, even though you know where this is all headed, it makes for great listening. We do indeed know how the next six plays are going to go, but Sayers presents a very creditable account of how these events in the Gospels could have played out. Related Posts: In this post, I'm going to discuss the first six of the twelve plays which make up the play cycle of Dorothy Sayers' The Man Born To Be King. The first play is entitled Kings In Judea and it deals with the Wisemen's interactions with Herod as he tries to learn from them where this prophesied newborn king is, who might threaten his rule. They of course sneak out of the country to avoid him, leading to his monstrous "slaughter of the innocents," ordering all the male children under the age of two in Bethlehem and its surrounding area put to death. The second play is The King's Herald which is, obviously, about the ministry of John the Baptist, and we are introduced to the adult Jesus here, as he is about to start his own ministry. It covers Jesus' baptism by John, His 40 days in the desert, and also brings some of the men who will become His disciples into the narrative; they are originally followers of John. The third play- A Certain Nobleman- covers the wedding in Canaan (where Jesus turns the water into wine) and His healing of the nobleman's son, from which the play derives its name. In play number four, The Heirs To The Kingdom, Jesus continues to gather His group of disciples and we are introduced to Judas, who is a follower of John the Baptist until John is imprisoned, then comes to meet with Jesus. Christ's ministry is really getting off the ground here; He is preaching and performing miracles which are bringing crowds to see and listen to Him. It's at this time that he really comes on the radar of the Jewish religious leaders who perceive Him as a very real threat to their power and influence. They meet together to discuss what can be done about Him and the idea is floated to try to turn one of Jesus' inner circle against Him; one- Baruch- mentions that he has an in with one: Judas Iscariot. Also in this play, we hear Jesus preaching what is, to the Jews of that time, a revolutionary interpretation of their Law: the law says to commit no murder. Jesus goes further and says to hate no one, for to hate is to commit murder in your heart. The Law says to love your friends and hate your enemies; Jesus says to love your enemies and do good to those who treat you badly. This is, He preaches, how to fulfill the Law. He then demonstrates this new way, healing the servant of a Roman Centurion. The play closes out with the news that John the Baptist has been beheaded in prison. The fifth play- The Bread of Heaven- centers mostly on a conversation Judas has with Baruch the Zealot. Baruch questions Judas about his association with Jesus and Judas tells him without hesitation that he believes Jesus to be the promised Messiah. Baruch suggests that, if so, it would be useful if Jesus could be convinced to urge His followers to rise against their Roman oppressors but Judas is quick to veto this. He says that this is not what Jesus' message or His kingdom is about. He tells Baruch about the Sermon on the Mount, describing Jesus' preaching of the Beatitudes. At this, Baruch changes tacks and says that he worries that Jesus is getting too popular; He could become egotistical and be corrupted by His seeming power over people. Judas says fiercely that, if he thought there was a chance of Jesus becoming corrupt, he'd kill Him himself. Baruch says that, if he ever sees Jesus riding into Jerusalem at the head of a cheering crowd, he'll know that Jesus is a grifter, out for His own acclaim. Judas refuses to listen further but Baruch tells him not to be hasty and to think on what he has said. As time goes on, the crowds continue to grow, following Jesus as he teaches and heals; the feeding of the five thousand occurs. Some of the crowd starts calling out that Jesus should be their king; this causes Judas to think of what Baruch said to him and he begins to wonder if Jesus might indeed be preaching His own kingdom, not God's. As the crowd grows over-excited Jesus slips away, making arrangements to meet the disciples after they sail across the lake. While out on the lake, a storm comes up and through the wind and waves, the disciples are shocked and fearful to see a man walking towards them on the water. It is Jesus and when they realize this, Peter hops out of the boat and walks toward Him, though he becomes fearful and starts to sink until Jesus rescues him. When they reach the boat, Jesus calms the waves and they sail the rest of the way in safety. The following day once again finds Jesus teaching; he refers to Himself as the "Bread of Life" saying that those who have it will never hunger again. His strange words scandalize many, including some of His disciples and Jesus asks them who they think He is. Simon Peter says that He is the Christ, Son of the Living God. The Feast of Tabernacles- play six- finds Calpurnia, the wife of Pontius Pilate deciding to go hear Jesus' teaching because a servant told her of His miraculous healings and wise words. The Mount of Transfiguration occurs during this time as well. Meanwhile, the High Priest Caiaphas is hoping that the Feast of Tabernacles will lure Jesus to teach at the synagogue, making Him vulnerable to being seized and arrested. A pharisee complains to him of Jesus' behaviour, describing how He had the impertinence to let Mary Magdalene was his feet and forgave her sins. Caiaphas finds this talk of forgiveness sinister; the claims of Jesus being the Messiah could stir up trouble with Rome if He gets enough of the people believing it... Caiaphas remarks dismissively that the mob know nothing of the Law. While they are speaking, there is a commotion in the street; they look out to see that the notorious criminal Barabbas has been arrested by the Romans and is being taken to jail. The High Priest decides that it has become necessary to get rid of Jesus, saying "It is sometimes expedient that one man should die for the people." To further this aim, Caiaphas arranges a meeting with Judas, asking him if Jesus is involved in political activities. Judas denies this, saying that Jesus is the Christ, but of a heavenly kingdom. Caiaphas also asks him about his meeting with Baruch; Judas says that the Zealot is not to be trusted, but that Jesus is sound. He tells the High Priest that he would denounce Jesus himself if he thought He wasn't. Despite his loyal words, Caiaphas detects some uncertainty in Judas' manner, as well as a hint of jealousy of his master. He ponders how he can use these things for his own purposes. Meanwhile, Jesus is preaching to a large crowd which includes Calpurnia. He speaks of being the Light of the World, and of the Living Water, but is interrupted by Baruch- hoping to stir up trouble- calling out that they need a strong leader. He is successful: a riot breaks out among the different factions in the crowd, with cries going up for Jesus to be stoned. Calpurnia's guards hustle her away to safety, and Jesus slips away in the confusion. This ends the sixth play, and this is where I'll pause- at the halfway point in the play cycle. Related Posts: Off and on through the Easter season, I've been listening to the play cycle on the life of Jesus, written by Dorothy L. Sayers during World War II. The Man Born To Be King debuted on BBC Radio during the Christmas season in 1941, the twelve plays being released once a month through the next year. In 1944 episodes 8-10, which cover the crucifixion and resurrection, were replayed at Easter. Sayers is of course best known as a writer of mystery novels, being one of the "Four Queens of Crime" (the other three being Agatha Christie, Margery Allingham, and Ngaio Marsh). Her most well-known works are the novels featuring the amateur sleuth, Lord Peter Wimsey. But she was also a student of languages- both classical and modern- and produced translations of a number of classic works including Dante's Divine Comedy and The Song of Roland. Sayers also wrote poetry, short stories, commentaries, and a number of books- and, obviously, plays- on Christian theology. She came by this last interest honestly, being the daughter of an Anglican minister back when Church of England clerics still had some nodding acquaintance with Christian theology. Oddly enough, Sayers' inspiration for writing The Man Born To Be King came neither from her classical language and literature studies, nor her background in theology. While she was still establishing herself as a writer, Sayers worked for an advertising agency from 1922-31, writing slogans and jingles. One of her co-workers- named Albert Henry Ross- wrote books on Christian apologetics in his spare time, under the pseudonym Frank Morison; one of these books was titled Who Moved The Stone? and it examined the historical aspects of the trial, execution, and resurrection of Jesus. Sayers drew from this book quite a bit while writing her play cycle- especially for the trial scene. The Man Born To Be King was controversial from the get-go; a number of prissy atheists started in complaining about Christian plays being a form of propaganda. But a number of Christians also took issue with the plays; some were against an actor, even a voice actor, portraying Christ. And some regarded the entire project as being irreverent- heretical, even- because Sayers had her characters speak in every day English rather than the very formal, old style language of the King James Bible. Once the plays were released, however, the response was overwhelmingly positive- hence the replay a couple of years later. One person who very much enjoyed the plays was C.S. Lewis. Lewis and Sayers had a lot in common: they were both writers- of fiction and theology- both Christians, and both lived in Oxford, England. The two became friends through correspondence- pen pals, as it were- after Dorothy Sayers wrote a fan letter to Lewis; he responded, and they kept on writing back and forth. After reading her plays, Lewis wrote: Dear Miss Sayers-- I’ve finished The Man Born to be King and think it a complete success. (Christie the H.M. of Westminster told me that the actual performances over the air left his 2 small daughters with “open and silent mouths” for several minutes). I shed real tears (hot ones) in places: since Mauriac’s Vie de Jesus nothing has moved me so much. I’m not absolutely sure whether Judas for me “comes off”—i.e. whether I shd. have got him without your off-stage analysis. But this may be due to merely reading what was meant to be heard. He’s quite a possible conception, no doubt: I’m only uncertain of the execution. But that is the only point I’m doubtful on. I expect to read it times without number again…. Yours sincerely C.S. Lewis (Collected Letters, II, 577f) Lewis would indeed go on to read it again- every Holy Week from then on- and spoke critically about the "cultured asses... who are always waffling about reverence." He also added it to his list of recommended books, alongside works by such giants as St. Augustine, George MacDonald, G.K. Chesterton, and John Bunyan. Actually, that's how I learned of Sayers' play cycle: I was scanning over C.S. Lewis' reading list, planning to pick a new book to start as a devotional, and saw The Man Born To Be King listed, then looked it up and started listening. So that's a brief background to Dorothy Sayers' plays; in my next post I'll discuss the contents of the plays and my thoughts on them. Related Posts: In the run up to Easter, I'm listening to The Man Born To Be King, a series of twelve plays written by Dorothy Sayers about the life of Jesus. Sayers is most well known for writing crime fiction- especially the Lord Peter Whimsey mysteries. She was, however, also a serious religious scholar who wrote extensively about Christian doctrine and produced very popular translations of Dante's Divine Comedy and The Song of Roland, among other works. And, obviously, she wrote The Man Born To Be King. It was originally a series of radio plays, broadcast on the BBC during World War II, though the version I'm listening to was produced in 1967. I'll give a full review of the play cycle when I'm done; at the moment I'm on the fourth of them- The Heirs To The Kingdom- and each play has between a 40 to 45 minute run time. Related Posts:"Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and caldron bubble." I forget exactly how the topic came up, but I was recently discussing the Weird Sisters (the three witches) in Macbeth with my fourteen year old nephew while in the car... as one does, since homeschoolers start in on Shakespeare a lot earlier than their public school counterparts. His younger brothers, taking their lessons in the same room, have picked up on several key points in the story and, being boys, have of course modified the words for their own amusement. So, as we were speaking of the witches' prophesy, the voice of my eight year old nephew arose from the backseat in sepulchral tones (accompanied by the five year old's snickering): "Bubble, bubble, toilet trouble..." They're probably not the first youngsters to come up with that, but it just goes to show you how little boys think. And, I admit, I laughed. Related Posts:One of my nephews who is being homeschooled had two days of exams this week; in one of them, he wrote the monologue from Two Gentlemen of Verona Act III, Scene III from memory: I know I've said this before, but it drives me crazy when people denigrate homeschooling. I went to public school before it was the raging dumpster fire it is now, and we still weren't learning this stuff- especially in the earlier grades like my nephews are... this one's in eighth grade. I have family who homeschool, and I have family who don't; I used to see benefits to both options. But I really don't see any upsides to the public system anymore. One of my sisters is a teacher in the public school system and she says that she would never send a child into it now. She emphasizes never. So if you have kids, my advice is to find another way. The good new is, there are a lot more options and resources than there used to be- and a lot more homeschoolers. My nephews belong to a homeschool co op in their area which gets together for lessons a couple times a week, so aren't always at home doing their school work. It's not easy, obviously- it takes hard work and sacrifice- but healthy, well educated kids are worth it. Related Posts:My homeschooling nephews have been reading A Midsummer Night's Dream and the views of elementary aged boys on Shakespeare can be... interesting. One's description of a plot point: Whatever they thought of the rest of the play, the boys were united in their distaste for the play within the play- a retelling of Pyramus and Thisbe. My sister gave them an exercise: write a letter from one of the characters in Midsummer to another one. This is what they came up with... Ouch.
|
About MeI'm a lover of good books, classic movies, and well-written shows (as well as some pretty cheesy ones, to be completely honest). Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
Fun SitesOdds & Ends |