Why should we even read literature?

[Centrist Simon Steele]

This question is absurd to ask here, and I know it. However, as a literature teacher, and a teacher of future English teachers, this is the question I am becoming more and more uncertain of an answer to. I know why literature matters. I understand the importance of literacy in our everyday lives, but broadly speaking in terms of U.S. culture, we do not truly value what study of literature provides. (So, I'm hoping some of our friends not from the US have some answers to share)

When I am sending a new teach out to teach literature (among other skills such as writing and speaking & listening), what do I tell them when they come back and say, "Kids hate reading"? I remember this from when I taught middle school--the vast majority of our students don't want to read, and, especially, not literature. Things Fall Apart, by Chinua Achebe is often found in high school classrooms, and as I read it now for the first time, I am wholly engaged. But I came at this loving literature. It helps me understand things about the world more clearly, about other cultures, and I make connections to things happening now. Even though Onkonkwo is a fearless warrior and wealthy leader in 19th Century Africa, I can see connections between him and rural white students I used to teach who thought and believed things like Onkonkwo believes. He's, in fact, very conservative in his characterization--he believes in tradition, hard-work, not letting the "laziness" of his father define him, etc. In lots of ways, you'd think some of our modern students could read this, connect it, and come away with some greater understanding about other cultures, other places. But, they don't. Kids resist connecting with these texts. 

I don't think it's an issue of age. I used to read all the literature handed to us in high school, and I was considered a kid of average intelligence who liked to read. 

But it's this process of why you love reading, why I love it, and helping kids who don't love reading somehow find that love. The big things we always tell students about why it's so important to be literate is lost on them. And, at the end of the day, I come away thinking, why DO we teach literature? (Or math, or history, or science)

I have lots more to say about this, but I think I'll leave it here for now. I think (cynically, of course), that U.S. culture has been uniquely broken in such ways over the last 20 years, that making an argument of being a well-read person literally means zero. The word zero is important because U.S. culture derives value, primarily, from what we can earn from learning a skill. But, that aside, what's the case for teaching literature (to steal from Janet Alsup's book on this very topic).

[IFR]

I would be curious about different countries and their approach to teaching literature, and if there are comparative  studies that examine the resulting performance of the students. I think that would be helpful to this discussion.

With regard to fiction, I'm reminded of something Paul Dirac said to Oppenheimer: "In science you want to say something that nobody knew before, in words which everyone can understand. In poetry you are bound to say… something that everybody knows already in words that nobody can understand." And Ursula Le Guin's quote: "Art is a lie which makes us realize the truth."

I personally value fictional works, but for me it is purely for the entertainment, and I don't find it to be essential for a fulfilling life, either in an emotional or intellectual capacity. I know people who are absolutely brilliant and charming, and I'm pretty sure the only fiction they've read is Harry Potter. Some people will like Dostoyevsky and some people will hate his work, and that says absolutely nothing about the individual other than their opinion on Dostoyevsky.

Nonfiction, however, is essential. You are clearly gaining the perspective and experience of a diverse set of individuals, some of whom are incredibly talented and have much to offer.

I don't know if there is a way to get students to love reading though. I think one can only introduce the process and then allow for them to self-select. Studies on this would be interesting to read.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Oscar Wilde said something like "paradoxical though it may seem, life imitates art far more than the other way around".  If that's true, seems like a decent enough reason.

[Iskaral Pust]

I enjoy literature and literary fiction, although I usually find that the prose and author’s observations are higher quality than the theme, plot and arc of the characters, which are often melodramatic and self-pitying, not to mention unsubtly pushing the author’s personal agenda.

A wide and varied sampling of non-fiction is more important to understanding the complexity of our world, society and culture.  An author of fiction may write well but has no particular insight or qualification on the human condition or complexity of our world.  We confer false authority on authors of literature just because their resonant phrasing seems like it ought to be correct.

So I generally tend to combine a barbell of challenging, rigorous non-fiction and enjoyable genre fiction, then sprinkle in some literary fiction for really great prose and a clever phrasing of observations that resonate.

Difficult literature is very important in challenging our minds and our ability to handle complex thoughts (although non-fiction achieves this too, perhaps better).  But that’s more about doing difficult exercise to develop mental muscle rather than the content of the literature holding innate value. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

12 hours ago, IFR said:

I would be curious about different countries and their approach to teaching literature, and if there are comparative  studies that examine the resulting performance of the students. I think that would be helpful to this discussion.

With regard to fiction, I'm reminded of something Paul Dirac said to Oppenheimer: "In science you want to say something that nobody knew before, in words which everyone can understand. In poetry you are bound to say… something that everybody knows already in words that nobody can understand." And Ursula Le Guin's quote: "Art is a lie which makes us realize the truth."

I personally value fictional works, but for me it is purely for the entertainment, and I don't find it to be essential for a fulfilling life, either in an emotional or intellectual capacity. I know people who are absolutely brilliant and charming, and I'm pretty sure the only fiction they've read is Harry Potter. Some people will like Dostoyevsky and some people will hate his work, and that says absolutely nothing about the individual other than their opinion on Dostoyevsky.

Nonfiction, however, is essential. You are clearly gaining the perspective and experience of a diverse set of individuals, some of whom are incredibly talented and have much to offer.

I don't know if there is a way to get students to love reading though. I think one can only introduce the process and then allow for them to self-select. Studies on this would be interesting to read.

A couple of things--I am interested in how other countries do it too. This is something I could actually begin researching (and should). 

As for nonfiction, in the U.S., we've shifted away from literary texts (they're still taught, but they're not the focus on what kids are tested on, and testing in the U.S. is, of course, King) to what we call "informational texts." This is so English teachers don't just teach non-fiction literature, I think. It's things like historical documents, science articles, etc. A lot of the humanities in the U.S. are becoming viewed as "in service to other more important disciplines" as opposed to being important in and of itself. So your Dirac quote is frustrating in that so many people are moving away from that point of view. 

Strangely, I found a recent report that for the first time since the 70s (I think), leisurely reading (and it's primarily fiction) has increased in the U.S.

27 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Oscar Wilde said something like "paradoxical though it may seem, life imitates art far more than the other way around".  If that's true, seems like a decent enough reason.

I agree. I wonder, though, when a significant percentage of the U.S. population scoffs at these ideas about art, what do we do? 

8 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

I enjoy literature and literary fiction, although I usually find that the prose and author’s observations are higher quality than the theme, plot and arc of the characters, which are often melodramatic and self-pitying, not to mention unsubtly pushing the author’s personal agenda.

A wide and varied sampling of non-fiction is more important to understanding the complexity of our world, society and culture.  An author of fiction may write well but has no particular insight or qualification on the human condition or complexity of our world.  We confer false authority on authors of literature just because their resonant phrasing seems like it ought to be correct.

So I generally tend to combine a barbell of challenging, rigorous non-fiction and enjoyable genre fiction, then sprinkle in some literary fiction for really great prose and a clever phrasing of observations that resonate.

Difficult literature is very important in challenging our minds and our ability to handle complex thoughts (although non-fiction achieves this too, perhaps better).  But that’s more about doing difficult exercise to develop mental muscle rather than the content of the literature holding innate value. 

Something I've been reading in some of the texts we have our pre-service English teachers read is that we (English teachers in general) have to move away from the notion that if you haven't read Shakespeare, you haven't read literature. Literacy is the act of reading, the skills that are developed with the text, and in reading literature the emphasis should be on reading not on what constitutes literature.

I have seen a huge influx of YA dystopian novels in high school English classrooms. I also am a big fan of non-fiction, though as I mentioned IFR above, what we mean by nonfiction matters too. Is it literary nonfiction? Informational reading? Etc.

[butterweedstrover]

On 8/4/2021 at 1:24 AM, IFR said:

I would be curious about different countries and their approach to teaching literature, and if there are comparative  studies that examine the resulting performance of the students. I think that would be helpful to this discussion.

With regard to fiction, I'm reminded of something Paul Dirac said to Oppenheimer: "In science you want to say something that nobody knew before, in words which everyone can understand. In poetry you are bound to say… something that everybody knows already in words that nobody can understand." And Ursula Le Guin's quote: "Art is a lie which makes us realize the truth."

I personally value fictional works, but for me it is purely for the entertainment, and I don't find it to be essential for a fulfilling life, either in an emotional or intellectual capacity. I know people who are absolutely brilliant and charming, and I'm pretty sure the only fiction they've read is Harry Potter. Some people will like Dostoyevsky and some people will hate his work, and that says absolutely nothing about the individual other than their opinion on Dostoyevsky.

Nonfiction, however, is essential. You are clearly gaining the perspective and experience of a diverse set of individuals, some of whom are incredibly talented and have much to offer.

I don't know if there is a way to get students to love reading though. I think one can only introduce the process and then allow for them to self-select. Studies on this would be interesting to read.

Non-fiction can be literary, but I find that counter-intuitive. 

The purpose of fiction is to tell a narrative, which functions best as literature (or "artistic-merit"). Without this cultural device there would be no civilization. Keep in mind the Romans utilized art as well as engineering to promote stability. Why? 

Because humans are partly irrational. Emotions like love, greed, envy, fear, or grief might have a material purpose, but it does not scientifically benefit humans in their end goal. 

A person who is greedy could become poor, a person desperately in love could become heartbroken, fear could lead us into more danger, and grief can cause more pain. The human mind does not rationalize or disperse these emotions to increase the likeliness of achieving an end goal, in fact they most often deter us from getting what we need. 

To better understand that facet we must understand the cognitive dissonance involved in morality or sociability that does not allow for strict guidelines. And narrative beauty can translate information that is otherwise unapproachable through technical (rational) understanding.   

[butterweedstrover]

On 8/4/2021 at 2:03 PM, Centrist Simon Steele said:

 

Something I've been reading in some of the texts we have our pre-service English teachers read is that we (English teachers in general) have to move away from the notion that if you haven't read Shakespeare, you haven't read literature. Literacy is the act of reading, the skills that are developed with the text, and in reading literature the emphasis should be on reading not on what constitutes literature.

I have seen a huge influx of YA dystopian novels in high school English classrooms. I also am a big fan of non-fiction, though as I mentioned IFR above, what we mean by nonfiction matters too. Is it literary nonfiction? Informational reading? Etc.

I have agreed with most of what you have said, but not this. Literacy is not just about reading. Reading poor texts will fill our brain with junk that crowds out more worthy readings. English should be about developing a mind for literature, and critical examining what the worth is of any text. Not reading what makes people feel engaged. 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

I have agreed with most of what you have said, but not this. Literacy is not just about reading. Reading poor texts will fill our brain with junk that crowds out more worthy readings. English should be about developing a mind for literature, and critical examining what the worth is of any text. Not reading what makes people feel engaged. 

 

Who decides what a "poor text" is?  There's a huge spectrum between say, Robert Stanek and "not Shakespeare".  

I can only speak to my own experience in the US but there is a huge world of great fiction out there that isn't the classics.  Some classics are great, others are boring enough to turn anyone off reading.  

How do you go about "developing a mind for literature" if the reader doesn't feel engaged?

[butterweedstrover]

4 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Who decides what a "poor text" is?  There's a huge spectrum between say, Robert Stanek and "not Shakespeare".  

I can only speak to my own experience in the US but there is a huge world of great fiction out there that isn't the classics.  Some classics are great, others are boring enough to turn anyone off reading.  

How do you go about "developing a mind for literature" if the reader doesn't feel engaged?

Middle-grade should prepare students for reading. By the time they reach college it should be the norm. 

It use to be the norm for students to learn greek and latin to read classical literature, then develop into English readings like Shakespeare, Chaucer, and later works like Middlemarch, Moby Dick, Robinson Crusoe, etc. 

These are common academic course rubrics, reading Stephen King is not for english class. That does not make them love reading, it makes them dislike good books. 

It is like feeding a person McDonalds, they will lose there appreciation for gourmet food because there is less instant gratification. 

There are classics in the middle-grade level. Bell Prater's boy, Jack London (Call of the wild), Catcher in the Rye, but the dystopian stuff should be cut (the giver, 1984, animal farm, Ender's Game, etc.). 

And of course my all time favorite book, Alice's Adventure in Wonderland which is a children's book. For poetry Byron is a necessity that is too often left out. Whitman should be read in history class just like Dickens. They are period writers, not the classics. Harold Bloom also mentioned Jay Write in his interview with Charlie Rose that I watch recently (an African America poet who is usually ignored). 

Here is a sample of Jay Write, see how he compares to the likes of T.S. Elliot for yourself: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/42745/desires-persistence  

[Larry of the Lawn]

16 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Middle-grade should prepare students for reading. By the time they reach college it should be the norm. 

It use to be the norm for students to learn greek and latin to read classical literature, then develop into English readings like Shakespeare, Chaucer, and later works like Middlemarch, Moby Dick, Robinson Crusoe, etc. 

These are common academic course rubrics, reading Stephen King is not for english class. That does not make them love reading, it makes them dislike good books. 

It is like feeding a person McDonalds, they will lose there appreciation for gourmet food because there is less instant gratification. 

There are classics in the middle-grade level. Bell Prater's boy, Jack London (Call of the wild), Catcher in the Rye, but the dystopian stuff should be cut (the giver, 1984, animal farm, Ender's Game, etc.). 

And of course my all time favorite book, Alice's Adventure in Wonderland which is a children's book. For poetry Byron is a necessity that is too often left out. Whitman should be read in history class just like Dickens. They are period writers, not the classics. Harold Bloom also mentioned Jay Write in his interview with Charlie Rose that I watch recently (an African America poet who is usually ignored). 

Here is a sample of Jay Write, see how he compares to the likes of T.S. Elliot for yourself: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/42745/desires-persistence  

Re: bolded: All due respect (...)  I'm not sure why something being in "common academic  course rubrics" makes it good, or how reading Stephen King makes someone dislike "good" (lol) books.

I think you're making a bunch of subjective classifications here, as you did in that other thread you started and bailed on, that you aren't backing up.  

Why is Whitman ok for history class but not "literature"?  

You're just stating your personal preferences 

Re: the part I italicized- this is just unsubstantiated classist nonsense.  

I read absolute 'trash' my entire childhood.  Didn't stop me from appreciating the shit you're labelling classics.  In fact one wouldn't have been possible without the other, and the idea that someone needs to learn ancient Greek or Latin to appreciate literature is more of this classist bs.  

 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

BTW, I hated reading Things Fall Apart in highschool.  I re-read it a year ago and loved it.  

Only a personal example so obviously doesn't mean much but force-feeding kids classics, as the teacher in the OP mentioned, might just turn them off reading altogether if they can't find any joy in the act.

[butterweedstrover]

7 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Re: bolded: All due respect (...)  I'm not sure why something being in "common academic  course rubrics" makes it good, or how reading Stephen King makes someone dislike "good" (lol) books.

I think you're making a bunch of subjective classifications here, as you did in that other thread you started and bailed on, that you aren't backing up.  

Why is Whitman ok for history class but not "literature"?  

You're just stating your personal preferences 

Re: the part I italicized- this is just unsubstantiated classist nonsense.  

I read absolute 'trash' my entire childhood.  Didn't stop me from appreciating the shit you're labelling classics.  In fact one wouldn't have been possible without the other, and the idea that someone needs to learn ancient Greek or Latin to appreciate literature is more of this classist bs.  

 

 

I didn't bail, I just didn't have the time to keep the conversation going forever. Threads have a life-span and if no one else wanted to take it up it will naturally whither and die. 

Books like The Giver, 1984, etc. belong in a politics or sociology class. Dickens, Whitman, etc. are period writers. They tell you about their society but are not great poets/novelists for english class. 

I admit the italicized quote was a bit much, I take it back. 

You can read what you want outside of school, but school is meant to assign modern popular fiction that are not period pieces.  

[SeanF]

On 8/4/2021 at 6:29 PM, larrytheimp said:

Oscar Wilde said something like "paradoxical though it may seem, life imitates art far more than the other way around".  If that's true, seems like a decent enough reason.

Very true.  I think that it's always been a human trait to want to want to emulate and measure up to our literary heroes.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Shakespeare the man would be bloody confused that his stuff is somehow considered elite literature.

[Zorral]

Actually we can't have any idea of what Shakespeare would think about this, though I would guess he was certainly reaching to create high literary art with his sonnets, as many works in sonnet form as practiced by poets before him -- such as Petrarch, rather considered the father of the sonnet,  and in his time too, as with Sydney.  We are fairly certain too, that Shakespeare did have quite a good knowledge of Italian literature from at least Petrarch's time. Shakespeare may even have gone to Italy, as did Chaucer before him.  But we can't know that certainly either.

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

13 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Actually we can't have any idea of what Shakespeare would think about this, though I would guess he was certainly reaching to create high literary art with his sonnets, as many works in sonnet form as practiced by poets before him -- such as Petrarch, rather considered the father of the sonnet,  and in his time too, as with Sydney.  We are fairly certain too, that Shakespeare did have quite a good knowledge of Italian literature from at least Petrarch's time. Shakespeare may even have gone to Italy, as did Chaucer before him.  But we can't know that certainly either.

I'm sceptical of Shakespeare going to Italy (neither Merchant nor Othello mention Venetian canals, and his geography generally is poor). I'm of the theory that he picked up his Italian stuff via social interaction in London. 

He was primarily a businessman, however - he wrote his plays to make money, and get bums on seats. That's what I meant when I suggested that he wouldn't consider himself a producer of elite literature, though I acknowledge that he'd have considered his poetry a bit classier.

[Zorral]

From Marlowe?   One does rather believe that Marlowe wished to write Great Drama, i.e. Literature ... I guess? 

[Larry of the Lawn]

On 8/28/2021 at 7:25 AM, butterweedstrover said:

I didn't bail, I just didn't have the time to keep the conversation going forever. Threads have a life-span and if no one else wanted to take it up it will naturally whither and die. 

Books like The Giver, 1984, etc. belong in a politics or sociology class. Dickens, Whitman, etc. are period writers. They tell you about their society but are not great poets/novelists for english class. 

I admit the italicized quote was a bit much, I take it back. 

You can read what you want outside of school, but school is meant to assign modern popular fiction that are not period pieces.  

How do you distinguish a "period piece" from "modern popular fiction? 

These are arbitrary classifications that are not distinct.  Why is the literature that you're advocating superior or more appropriate for an English class?  You have not explained any of this.

[VigoTheCarpathian]

On 8/28/2021 at 4:25 AM, butterweedstrover said:

Books like The Giver, 1984, etc. belong in a politics or sociology class. Dickens, Whitman, etc. are period writers. They tell you about their society but are not great poets/novelists for english class. 

You can read what you want outside of school, but school is meant to assign modern popular fiction that are not period pieces.  

I’m going to call BS on this.  I think any author (writing in English or not) could be slapped with a label of “period writer” or “political/sociological”, and kicked out of of English class.  You mentioned Stephen King as some kind of junk author who shouldn’t be allowed in classes, but literally the only thing he does well is write “modern popular fiction that are not period pieces” - so which way do you want it?

 

[butterweedstrover]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

How do you distinguish a "period piece" from "modern popular fiction? 

These are arbitrary classifications that are not distinct.  Why is the literature that you're advocating superior or more appropriate for an English class?  You have not explained any of this.

It depends on how long-lasting the popular fiction is which we can't know until well into the future. 

We can assume Harry Potter is a period piece because it is so influential to society during which time it was being published. In many years we will look back and examine Rowling's works like we do Dickens. 

Rowling tells us about England in the 1990s just like Dickens tells us about England in the Victorian period. We can't know which popular fiction will last the longest so we can't determine these things as of now. 

But that is not for today. Today is not the time to read Stephen King or JK Rowling in class, that is for generations later. 

As for why English books like Moby Dick are better for English than The Giver I will say it is because books like The Giver are arguments about a political ideology while Moby Dick encompasses political ideology as part of its structure (elliptically, artistically, and thematically). English class is about the usage of the english language, not about the semantics of the debate.