A lively and engaging guide to vital habits of mind that can help you think more deeply, write more effectively, and learn more joyfully How to Think like Shakespeare is a brilliantly fun exploration of the craft of thoughtâone that demonstrates what we've lost in education today, and how we might begin to recover it. In fourteen brief chapters that draw from Shakespeare's world and works, and from other writers past and present, Scott Newstok distills enduring practices that can make learning more creative and pleasurable.Challenging a host of today's questionable notions about education, Newstok shows how mental play emerges through work, creativity through imitation, autonomy through tradition, innovation through constraint, and freedom through discipline. It was these practices, and a conversation with the pastânot a fruitless obsession with assessmentâthat nurtured a mind like Shakespeare's. And while few of us can hope to approach the genius of the Bard, we can all learn from the exercises that shaped him.Written in a friendly, conversational tone and brimming with insights, How to Think like Shakespeare enacts the thrill of thinking on every page, reviving timelessâand timelyâways to stretch your mind and hone your words.
HĂ€ufig gestellte Fragen
Wie kann ich mein Abo kĂŒndigen?
Gehe einfach zum Kontobereich in den Einstellungen und klicke auf âAbo kĂŒndigenâ â ganz einfach. Nachdem du gekĂŒndigt hast, bleibt deine Mitgliedschaft fĂŒr den verbleibenden Abozeitraum, den du bereits bezahlt hast, aktiv. Mehr Informationen hier.
(Wie) Kann ich BĂŒcher herunterladen?
Derzeit stehen all unsere auf MobilgerĂ€te reagierenden ePub-BĂŒcher zum Download ĂŒber die App zur VerfĂŒgung. Die meisten unserer PDFs stehen ebenfalls zum Download bereit; wir arbeiten daran, auch die ĂŒbrigen PDFs zum Download anzubieten, bei denen dies aktuell noch nicht möglich ist. Weitere Informationen hier.
Welcher Unterschied besteht bei den Preisen zwischen den AboplÀnen?
Mit beiden AboplÀnen erhÀltst du vollen Zugang zur Bibliothek und allen Funktionen von Perlego. Die einzigen Unterschiede bestehen im Preis und dem Abozeitraum: Mit dem Jahresabo sparst du auf 12 Monate gerechnet im Vergleich zum Monatsabo rund 30 %.
Was ist Perlego?
Wir sind ein Online-Abodienst fĂŒr LehrbĂŒcher, bei dem du fĂŒr weniger als den Preis eines einzelnen Buches pro Monat Zugang zu einer ganzen Online-Bibliothek erhĂ€ltst. Mit ĂŒber 1 Million BĂŒchern zu ĂŒber 1.000 verschiedenen Themen haben wir bestimmt alles, was du brauchst! Weitere Informationen hier.
UnterstĂŒtzt Perlego Text-zu-Sprache?
Achte auf das Symbol zum Vorlesen in deinem nÀchsten Buch, um zu sehen, ob du es dir auch anhören kannst. Bei diesem Tool wird dir Text laut vorgelesen, wobei der Text beim Vorlesen auch grafisch hervorgehoben wird. Du kannst das Vorlesen jederzeit anhalten, beschleunigen und verlangsamen. Weitere Informationen hier.
Ist How to Think like Shakespeare als Online-PDF/ePub verfĂŒgbar?
Ja, du hast Zugang zu How to Think like Shakespeare von Scott Newstok im PDF- und/oder ePub-Format sowie zu anderen beliebten BĂŒchern aus Education & Education Theory & Practice. Aus unserem Katalog stehen dir ĂŒber 1Â Million BĂŒcher zur VerfĂŒgung.
âI will not cease from mental fight,â Blake wrote. Mental fight means thinking against the current, not with it.
âVirginia Woolf, âThoughts on Peace in an Air Raidâ (1940)
Thinkingâs tough. We all want shortcuts; you probably picked up this book because you thought it would give you shortcuts. Thinking taxes us, because our brains are designed not for thought but for the avoidance of thought.1 No wonder we dodge it! But donât take my word for it:
âą Nothing pains some people more than having to think.
âMartin Luther King Jr. (1963)
âą Most people would die sooner than thinkâin fact they do so.
âBertrand Russell (1925)
âą Remember how many pass their whole lives and hardly once think and never learned themselves to think.
âWalt Whitman (1855)
âą What is the hardest task in the world? To think.
âRalph Waldo Emerson (1841)
âą the very painful Effort of really thinking
âSamuel Taylor Coleridge (1811)
âą A provision of endless apparatus, a bustle of infinite enquiry and research, or even the mere mechanical labour of copying, may be employed, to evade and shuffle off real labour,âthe real labour of thinking.
âSir Joshua Reynolds (1784)2
Thinking about thinking might be easier to caricature than to capture, whether in iconic images of Rodinâs Thinker or Hamlet holding Yorickâs skull. The novelist William Golding relates how he was chastised as a delinquent student:
âDonât you ever think at all?â
No, I didnât think, wasnât thinking, couldnât thinkâI was simply waiting in anguish for the interview to stop.
âThen youâd better learnâhadnât you?â
On one occasion the headmaster leaped to his feet, reached up and plonked Rodinâs masterpiece on the desk before me.
âThatâs what a man looks like when heâs really thinking.â
I surveyed the gentleman without interest or comprehension.3
Lewis Carroll mocks the faith that a mere pose will induce insight: when the Dodo canât answer a question
without a great deal of thought . . . it stood for a long time with one finger pressed upon its forehead (the position in which you usually see Shakespeare, in the pictures of him), while the rest waited in silence.4
Even Plato failed to settle upon one apt image for thinking, calling forth, in turn, the sting of a gadfly; the midwifing of a notion; the paralysis induced by an electric ray; an inward conversation; a sudden, invisible wind.
Yet like the famous judge faced with obscenity, we claim to know thinking when we see it, despite the difficulty of definition. And if we believe cultivating it is a good thing, then we are often perverse. Weâve imposed educational programs that kill the capacity to think independently, or even the desire to do so. While we point to thinkersâLeonardo, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Curieâ who model the disciplined, independent, questing intellect we claim to revere, we enforce systems ensuring that our own young people could never emulate them.
Shakespeare earned his place in our pantheon of minds by staging thought in action. Across his works, terms like âthink,â âthinking,â or âthoughtâ outnumber âfeel,â âfeeling,â or âfelt,â by a nearly 10:1 ratio. He raises ideas into a quasi-physical reality,5 vivifying their dynamic power as a palpable force. When staging thinking, Shakespeare adopts images from a craft workshop, whether as thoughts whirlĂšd like a potterâs wheel, or the quick forge and working-house of thoughtâas if one were hammering mental metal on an anvil.
He even coins an adjective for thinking, âforgetive.â âForgetiveâ looks as though it ought to mean something like, well, âforgetful.â But the emphasis is instead on the kinetic activity in that root âforgeâ: to make or grasp. We must be ready to fly like thought to catch it in the act, for nimble thought can jump both sea and land.6 (When Helen Keller placed her hands on Merce Cunningham to feel him leap, she marveled: How like thought. How like the mind it is.)7
As Shakespeareâs contemporary Michel de Montaigne put it, thinking about thinking is a thorny undertaking, and more so than it seems, to follow a movement so wandering as that of our mind.8
Hereâs a recent example of not thinking about Shakespearean thinking.
Ken Robinsonâs âDo Schools Kill Creativity?â is a popular TED talk, with more than sixty million views. The title primes your answer: yesâyes, of course schools kill creativity. And Robinsonâs pitch follows his self-confirming template:
schools are _______ [hierarchical/industrialist/outdated]; this is a _______ [crisis/crime/catastrophe]; and the answer is _______ [creativity/innovation/technology].
Yet his diagnoses and his prescriptions donât line up, right from his disarming opening joke:
. . . you donât think of Shakespeare being a child, do you? Shakespeare being seven?
I never thought of it.
I mean, he was seven at some point.
He was in somebodyâs English class, wasnât he?
How annoying would that be?
âMust try harder.â
Sir Ken gets the laughs. But Shakespeare never studied in an âEnglish classâ; no such class would exist until centuries after his time. Instead, his Stratford grammar school was conducted in Latin. And his regimented Latin curriculum proved to be the crucible for his creative achievementâin English.
Robinson is right about one thing: Shakespeare would have been enrolled at around the age of sevenâlong considered a pivotal developmental stage for children, as lasting patterns of thinking take hold. Aristotle held that children should leave home and enter school when they turned seven. At seven, medieval pages would enter the household of a knight. Itâs the age that Michael Aptedâs Seven Up documentary commences its remarkable chronicle of the life-determining effects of social class, summoning the motto attributed to Loyola: Give me the child for the first seven years, and I will give you the man.
In 2016, I was invited to address my collegeâs incoming students. My summer was consumed with fretting that the last thing theyâd want to hear would be a lecture from some forty-three-year-old white man.
Indeed, my microdemographic had just become a reverse meme! An irritated millennial journalist had replaced the word âmillennialsâ in magazine headlines with the phrase â43-Year-Old White Men,â9 exposing fatuous generational generalizations:
âHow 43-Year-Old White Men Are Ruining the Workforceâ
âWhy Are So Many 43-Year-Old White Men Having Zero Sex?â
âThe Hot New 43-Year-Old White Men Trend Is Hating 43-Year-Old
White Menâ
and my favorite:
âMartha Stewart Still Confused about What 43-Year-Old White
Men Are Exactlyâ
So I was cautious about being the cranky old prof hectoring the youth.
But it dawned on me: these students would have been seven years old just around the moment that our obsession with shallow forms of evaluation was kicking into high gear. Their cohort was the first to have been marched through their entire primary and secondary schooling under a testing-obsessed...