Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[matusiak <dave AT matusiak.org>]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/ 
0,5744,10699003%255E16947,00.html

After "Heat" and "Scent of A Woman" I am left wondering just how many  
lines Al can scream his way thru.  Also perplexing to me is the innate  
drive of Pacino to get next-generation kids to read (Yes, that word was  
'read', as in 'with their eyes' and 'from a book') the works of William  
Shakespeare.  I honestly cannot think of one thing (besides the bible)  
that would drive kids away from reading more than that archaic, oral  
bungle that is Olde English.

Yes, I agree that many of the themes are universal and of course there  
are lessons to be learned.  Just like their are lessons to be learned  
via "ER" or "Sex in the City."  Yet the hollering elderly fail to  
realize that it bores the pants (or skirts) off of young people to read  
such things.  I mean, why not have them read the ingredients off of a  
bag of lawn fertilizer?  At least the English is up to date.

Anyway, not to start a debate on the relative merits of W. Shakespeare  
or his works, but I do not agree that this is the best way to encourage  
kids to read.  I think Oprah does a much better job of presenting works  
that a greater percentage of the country can read, understand, and  
enjoy.  No, it may not be the Merchant of Venice, but at least they  
don't feel like they just wasted two or three weeks reading something  
incomprehensible.

And from the article: "Meanwhile, Pacino has been spruiking the  
benefits of Shakespeare."  What the hell is spruiking?  My spell check  
does not recognize such madness.  Is this an Australian word?   
Spelunking?

So, yeah - my vote on the idea of making movies (for kids, nonetheless)  
out of old Willy's works is Da-na-no, my biddy.  Wa da tah.


--
Creating chaos in all the right places...
                              ... http://ibiblio.org/matusiak/
                                                            --