From the opening line of David Brooks' most recent column, "Honor Code," the New York Times op-ed columnist is in over his head. Brooks refers to Henry V as "one of Shakespeare's most appealing characters," but any sophisticated reader knows that Prince Hal is not in the least appealing. Yes, a shallow reader might think that Prince Hal is the "rambunctious" youth hailed by Brooks, but that is a cliché.
One can hail Henry V's eloquence in inspiring his troops, but that eloquence and valor are mitigated by Prince Hal's calculating, despicably political nature and his disloyalty to Falstaff, whom he abandons with the coldness of a psychopath, "I know thee not, old man."
While Falstaff is sometimes caricatured onstage, he, unlike Hal, is sublime. One of Shakespeare's greatest creations, Falstaff has an exuberance to him; he delights in life and lust, and in his youth he had been a great warrior, at least according to legend.
Prince Hal, on the other hand, is never convincing as a fighter in Henry IV, Part I. When he defeats Hotspur, a hothead but one with uncommon courage and integrity, Hal's victory does not ring true. That is because, unlike Hamlet, Prince Hal never convinces us that he has been practicing his fencing offstage; Prince Hal does not have the character, depth or discipline for such labors.
Moreover, Prince Hal is not of the stuff of Hamlet, who, like Falstaff, is sublime. One cannot reduce Hamlet to being "reflective," as Brooks does. Brooks should remember that Hamlet also stabs Polonius through the arras, an impulsive act, if there ever was one.
Far from being simply "reflective," Hamlet is layered with contradictions. He is both coward and hero, introspective and impulsive, petulant and mature.
If Brooks intends to improve our education system, for boys as well as girls, he can start by reading beyond the surface or Cliffs Notes version of the Bard's texts and learning to distinguish sublime characters from pedestrian ones.
Boys and girls in our country need the deep reading experiences that some of us enjoyed when we were young and still do to this day.
Just as one cannot reduce Hamlet to being "reflective," one cannot reduce a child or a teacher to a test score.
Teachers should not be evaluated solely or even principally on the standardized test scores of their students. Much more weight should be given to qualitative measures such as comments from supervisors, students and parents, feedback that indicates whether or not a teacher inspires her pupils, the way that Hamlet inspires me.
It astonishes me that we are allowing our children and teens from the ages of 8 to 18 to spend so much time on electronics, more than 7 ½ hours on average every day, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study.
What happened to learning about irony and metaphor, subtext and satire?
David Brooks would have us expose our kids to different cultures and philosophies, to teach them about the military and competition as well as the environment and cooperation, but he misses the point if kids don't learn how to read and think critically.
Given that Brooks himself cannot seem to identify stereotype, cant and cliché, how can he contemplate advising kids and teachers?
In his great books classes, Brooks evidently learned more about doctrine than how to appreciate the cognitive and aesthetic pleasures that come from reading imaginative literature like that of the Bard.
If Brooks really wants to help children, he should start by chiding the politicians (latter-day Prince Hals), who force school districts to buy new textbooks every two or four years.
And he should argue, as I have, in favor of the printed word, not electronics.
Finally, we should all teach our children to value the originality of Falstaff and Hamlet, not the forced actions of a political hack like Hal.
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
It's Another Trump-Biden Showdown — And We Need Your Help
The Future Of Democracy Is At Stake
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
Your Loyalty Means The World To Us
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
The 2024 election is heating up, and women's rights, health care, voting rights, and the very future of democracy are all at stake. Donald Trump will face Joe Biden in the most consequential vote of our time. And HuffPost will be there, covering every twist and turn. America's future hangs in the balance. Would you consider contributing to support our journalism and keep it free for all during this critical season?
HuffPost believes news should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. We rely on readers like you to help fund our work. Any contribution you can make — even as little as $2 — goes directly toward supporting the impactful journalism that we will continue to produce this year. Thank you for being part of our story.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
It's official: Donald Trump will face Joe Biden this fall in the presidential election. As we face the most consequential presidential election of our time, HuffPost is committed to bringing you up-to-date, accurate news about the 2024 race. While other outlets have retreated behind paywalls, you can trust our news will stay free.
But we can't do it without your help. Reader funding is one of the key ways we support our newsroom. Would you consider making a donation to help fund our news during this critical time? Your contributions are vital to supporting a free press.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our journalism free and accessible to all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you'll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.
Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.