Making a Case for Memorization Alternatives

When Kris and I pitched our idea to Dr. Preston (admittedly, it was on the day of presentations, after we had gone through with it...) his main concern was that although it adhered to the idea designing our own course, our method could potentially set a dangerous precedent for short-cutting.  This post is an attempt to alleviate some of those concerns, as well as explain how we came up with our solution.

Yesterday afternoon, Kris Green and I came up with an alternative to memorizing the Saint Crispin's day speech.  This was the result of a conversation we were having about whether memorizing poems was an effective learning strategy.  It started out as us complaining about it, but it eventually turned into a legitimate assessment.

Before going any further, I'll be frank.  Time saving was definitely the primary motivation for our decision to seek an alternative.  However, it was not a matter of laziness or an unwillingness to do work.  By the time we came up with the idea, I had memorized almost half of the speech.  Granted, having half of the poem memorized the day before is not an ideal spot to be, but rest assured that I would have pulled the late-night memorization spree if I thought it was necessary (this is what I did for To Be or Not To Be, after all).

Our solution wasn't about cutting corners, it was about efficiency.  I know that this sounds like an attempt to dress up an academic misdeed, but please allow me to argue the point.  I sincerely believe that pure memorization is not the most effective way to study a passage.  There's no doubt in my mind that there is some worth to memorization and recitation, especially for things like Shakespeare.  After reciting To Be or Not To Be, I was able to understand Hamlet's soliloquies much easier.  It was so ingrained that lines from it kept creeping in while I tried to memorize the Saint Crispin's day speech.  I even remember a couple lines of "Richard Cory", from sophomore year.  However, this hardly means that it is the only solution.  In fact, the "Allegory of the Cave" sonnet assignment had a similar effect on the level of my understanding, and is what inspired us to try it for the Saint Crispin speech.  I am notoriously slow at memorization, so when Kris suggested we customize the course, I quickly agreed.

While brainstorming alternatives, we kept in mind what the memorization was meant to accomplish.  From what we could gather, it should bring the reader closer to the text, facilitate in-depth analysis, and promote skills we'll need for the AP exam.  I believe our sonnet/dialogue/remix accomplished all of these things to an equal (or greater!) extent in less time.

One of the main draws of memorizing a poem is that it allows the reader to place him or herself close to the speaker.  In something like Shakespeare, where the performance is just as important as the words, this is extremely beneficial.  Reading something tragic or inspirational is one thing; hearing yourself proclaim it to the world is entirely different.  Writing the sonnet/dialogue did something similar, but flipped the perspective.  This way, we were brought closer to the author than the character.  In the process of "rewriting" the speech into a sonnet, we got a narrow look into what Shakespeare's writing process might have been like (not that I'm comparing either of us to him, of course).

A big criticism I've heard of memorization is that it does not necessitate any actual knowledge of what is being recited.  Ultimately, getting close to a character through memorization is a choice.  Many choose to simply memorize the sounds rather than the meaning.  There is a pitfall even for those who seek to understand the text.  After the hundredth time saying the same line, it inevitably begins to lose its meaning (a bit like how saying the same word over and over makes it sound funny).  However, when  condensing the speech into a sonnet, Kris and I were forced to read the lines carefully in order to portray the characters with acceptable accuracy.  We even did a bit of outside research on the Battle of Agincourt to make sure the "We are outnumbered, almost ten to four" line was historically sound.

The way we approached writing the sonnet involved many skills applicable to the AP exam (or comprehending writing in general).  Since we knew little of the play as a whole, we extrapolated our dialogue from what was given for recital.  In Westmoreland's case, this was just three lines.  As well as creating semi-believable dialogue, we aimed to make the sonnet a short summary of the speech -- all while maintaining the same tone.  We did this by breaking down the speech.  First we identified what we thought was the central theme, then we picked out a few lines we thought were essential to the meaning or had too much cultural significance to leave out (we few, we happy few).  We also attempted iambic pentameter by limiting our syllables.  At times it got tricky to balance properly descriptive words with syllable count.  As a result, we had to choose words carefully.  A word might be the perfect in its definition, but if it compromised the sonnet's flow we dropped it.  Each word was chosen to say more with less.  Sounds familiar, right?*

Hopefully this explanation is enough to show that our intent was not to side-step the assignment, but come up with a better solution.

*This is actually just a happy coincidence.  I didn't plan it, honest.