Jump to content

Why should we even read literature?


Centrist Simon Steele

Recommended Posts

Stephen King has been publishing novels for half a century and J.K. Rowling for close to 30 years, both are read and remain popular across multiple generations.  How many generations does it take before they can be used in a class room?

And if an English class is about the usage of the English language, shouldn't it include the usage by contemporary authors, not just authors who have been dead for a century or more, as well as the usage in essays on different topics, including social and political topics, as well as in novels and poetry.

As to your early premise that people can not appreciate classic literature unless they read specific books in a specific order in their formative years, without throwing any "fast-food" into the mix, I disagree.  Whether your reading choices started with comic books or Plato in the original Greek, you can certainly grow to love reading, and then you will read anything you can lay hands on, though not necessarily in the prescribed order. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, butterweedstrover said:

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.  

If “usage of the English language” is what it’s supposed to be about, then why emphasize structure and intent the author had (political, etc)?  Are you saying “poetry, but only poetry that meets some purity test and can’t be sociological/political/of the period” - because you throw out most fantastic English authors if you’re applying this subjective sword.

And I would also like to say that “Rowling would be read in the future for what she tells us about the 1990s society” bends my brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

 

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. 

 

Wha...what? Have you uh, actually read any of Rowling's books?

Edit: Pretty sure there are English Lit classes that use King books. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, El Kabong said:

Wha...what? Have you uh, actually read any of Rowling's books?

Edit: Pretty sure there are English Lit classes that use King books. 

Yeah, what people were reading at the time, what the mindset was, what the people (of that age group) were like. The fantasy elements are a looking glass through which the social hierarchy of school, teacher student relations, and adolescents struggle are enumerated. 

8 hours ago, VigoTheCarpathian said:

If “usage of the English language” is what it’s supposed to be about, then why emphasize structure and intent the author had (political, etc)?  Are you saying “poetry, but only poetry that meets some purity test and can’t be sociological/political/of the period” - because you throw out most fantastic English authors if you’re applying this subjective sword.

And I would also like to say that “Rowling would be read in the future for what she tells us about the 1990s society” bends my brain.

Um, no. Structure, narrative, etc. is part of how language is used. Literature is about superior artistic merit in writing, how is that writing used for building atmosphere, theme, and structure. It is elliptical and open to interpretation. 

Political books like 1984, the Giver, etc. are sociological/political debates with a narrative paint. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Leofric said:

Stephen King has been publishing novels for half a century and J.K. Rowling for close to 30 years, both are read and remain popular across multiple generations.  How many generations does it take before they can be used in a class room?

And if an English class is about the usage of the English language, shouldn't it include the usage by contemporary authors, not just authors who have been dead for a century or more, as well as the usage in essays on different topics, including social and political topics, as well as in novels and poetry.

As to your early premise that people can not appreciate classic literature unless they read specific books in a specific order in their formative years, without throwing any "fast-food" into the mix, I disagree.  Whether your reading choices started with comic books or Plato in the original Greek, you can certainly grow to love reading, and then you will read anything you can lay hands on, though not necessarily in the prescribed order. 

 

Whenever you want to study that time period, which is hopefully after our lifetime. Either way that has not to do with English Class. 

English class is about the great literature, it is not about overviewing modern books that are 'popular fiction'. If you have a class reading King or Rowling you are doing a disservice to the students. It is about learning, not enjoyment. People are not, when taking a biology class, expected to enjoy the subject, they must apply themselves to enjoy it. That doesn't mean speculative biology will be taught because it is more 'fun' than the basics and established laws.  

And no, reading comic books and Classical works are not the same thing. This is for educational purposes, not gratification. Readers don't learn as much from reading just anything, if that were the case what is the point of a syllabus? 

When you say language, you don't mean language for medical reports, you mean for literature. That is why it is about reading literature, not contemporary authors that debate modern day politics or social issues.    

Save that for politics or sociology, not english. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Yeah, what people were reading at the time, what the mindset was, what the people (of that age group) were like. The fantasy elements are a looking glass through which the social hierarchy of school, teacher student relations, and adolescents struggle are enumerated. 

Um, no. Structure, narrative, etc. is part of how language is used. Literature is about superior artistic merit in writing, how is that writing used for building atmosphere, theme, and structure. It is elliptical and open to interpretation. 

Per the original post- I think literature opens you up to the potentials of new thoughts and ways of thinking, and introduces one to the varying ways and structures your language (in this case, English) has successfully communicated these via written word.  So the stakes, as other people have mentioned, are first about getting people motivated to read and find these compelling enough to keep digging.  People prefer different structures (and media - there’s a reason audio and video are big now).  You have to get people curious and give them a breadth of understanding about structures and methods, and maybe history and context, and give them the tools to talk about literature before you move on to bigger fish.

And after all that, then I guess you can start wherever the bullsh*t wormhole the phrase “superior artistic merit” leads you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

What qualities in the Harry Potter series are engaging? Why not understand why the series is so popular? Opera wasn’t considered very high art once. I think Rowling got me with Harry living under the stairs. But it may have been the chocolate frogs.

I am sorry, but what purpose is there in teaching students about Harry Potter alongside the classics like Moby Dick or Shakespeare? 

Opera is a medium, and yes things are reconsidered (as Herman Melville was) but there has to be a reason behind it besides "it was engaging". 

Sure you can connect to the characters and be emotionally engaged, but that doesn't mean it has educational purposes in terms of developing a students capacity to think and analyze.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Potter books are engaging for children and YAs.  Not so much for adults, particularly adults who didn't grow up as kids with HP.  Trust me on this.

Engaging for kids does not art make, yanno?  Kids love poop jokes too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some books are written for the ear and Harry Potter is written for the eye and the emotions. The whole dementors and the patronis  symbols are wiser than they need to be. There is an amazing expression of the dark side of journalism. There is an idea not to just assume that everything is handled and abdicate your will.There is an idea of resisting authority if it’s generated from a bad place. There is some idea of studying for a purpose. Knowledge is power in these books. And somehow the incredible imagination keeps people enjoying it. Ph.D thesis coming on. Must. Stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

I am sorry, but what purpose is there in teaching students about Harry Potter alongside the classics like Moby Dick or Shakespeare? 

Opera is a medium, and yes things are reconsidered (as Herman Melville was) but there has to be a reason behind it besides "it was engaging". 

Sure you can connect to the characters and be emotionally engaged, but that doesn't mean it has educational purposes in terms of developing a students capacity to think and analyze.  

People are arguing with you because you're using a very narrow definition of literature, cherry picking extreme examples on the spectrum of literature to qualify what counts for you as "Literature" vs everything else. 

This stuff about political proscription vs elliptical interpretation is bogus bogus because it's a false dichotomy.  It sound like a weird twist of Burke on the sublime vs the beautiful. 

Anything James Baldwin has ever written is clearly both of these things and doesn't suffer for it, and if you don't think that is high art or belongs in a classroom I would love to hear why.  "Sonny's Blues" is an easy example.  It can be enjoyed on many levels too- you don't need to get everything Baldwin is doing or understand every allusion to appreciate it.  

The Great Gatsby* is a different type of example.  I've enjoyed reading it and it would probably fall heavier, by your standards, on the high-art side of things.  But it doesn't have any particularly deep or sublime insights into the human condition. 

And yes, plenty of people read Harry Potter alongside Chaucer.  I don't particularly think Harry Potter is anything amazing but your entire argument is entirely dependent on aesthetics purely born of ivory tower pretentions.  I literally read the first two Harry Potter books the summer before my senior year of highschool while reading Chaucer and Shakespeare.  I'm sure I'm not alone in enjoying and literature all over this analytic to high art scale you're basing your argument on.   It didn't poison my brain or make me unable to appreciate the old classy  shit.  

I'm having flashbacks of the Mr Show sketch "The Last Donut".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Potter is amazing. Chocolate frogs. Mandrakes. Quidditch. Dementors. Horcuxes. What portraits would do in their spare time. Invisibility cloaks. Herbology class. Potions! Mudbloods. And the first obvious question,” Are you a Slytherin or a Gryffindor? Am not sure…you could be either”.

Now Shakespeare was written as a play…so spoken aloud. I forget that whole bit on four letter “ c” words. Chaucer…well which plot is high art? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

How is Chaucer not a period piece?  It arguably has more contemporary social analysis than Harry Potter does.  How does it improve a student's ability to think and analyze more than Harry Potter does?  Would love to know.  

Show your work.

 

57 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

People are arguing with you because you're using a very narrow definition of literature, cherry picking extreme examples on the spectrum of literature to qualify what counts for you as "Literature" vs everything else. 

This stuff about political proscription vs elliptical interpretation is bogus bogus because it's a false dichotomy.  It sound like a weird twist of Burke on the sublime vs the beautiful. 

Anything James Baldwin has ever written is clearly both of these things and doesn't suffer for it, and if you don't think that is high art or belongs in a classroom I would love to hear why.  "Sonny's Blues" is an easy example.  It can be enjoyed on many levels too- you don't need to get everything Baldwin is doing or understand every allusion to appreciate it.  

The Great Gatsby* is a different type of example.  I've enjoyed reading it and it would probably fall heavier, by your standards, on the high-art side of things.  But it doesn't have any particularly deep or sublime insights into the human condition. 

And yes, plenty of people read Harry Potter alongside Chaucer.  I don't particularly think Harry Potter is anything amazing but your entire argument is entirely dependent on aesthetics purely born of ivory tower pretentions.  I literally read the first two Harry Potter books the summer before my senior year of highschool while reading Chaucer and Shakespeare.  I'm sure I'm not alone in enjoying and literature all over this analytic to high art scale you're basing your argument on.   It didn't poison my brain or make me unable to appreciate the old classy  shit.  

I'm having flashbacks of the Mr Show sketch "The Last Donut".

Lets start here: Do you think Harry Potter should be part of an English Class Curriculum? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Really, to both of you, this despise for literary quality has no place in the classroom. If you want to (outside of education) read pop fiction and argue it is better that is your prerogative. 

Education isn't about engaging students into your favorite hobby (reading), it is about increasing their capacity to think, and consuming the breadth of LITERATURE, not every single medium on earth. It is not about reading Christie, King, or Tolkien, it is about reading the origins of the western canon and the most literary classics. 

That is literature that is ambiguous, open to interpretation, and with resounding depth. Not shallow political commentary on some modern day issues written so that the readers are told what to believe. It is about teaching students how to think. 

Meh.  

I’m not advocating teaching King or Rowling alongside Chaucer.  I think you are right about it is teaching students how to think, but you’re way off-base when you try to parse out what is “important” and “classical” and “political” and “canon”- that discernment needs to be part of the teaching.  Do you bin Swift and Twain into “political, no place in English literature” for A Modest Propsal and Huck Finn…or are they a “period piece” or  “written for purposes of humor” or some other “doesn’t fit my criteria” purpose? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, VigoTheCarpathian said:

Meh.  

I’m not advocating teaching King or Rowling alongside Chaucer.  I think you are right about it is teaching students how to think, but you’re way off-base when you try to parse out what is “important” and “classical” and “political” and “canon”- that discernment needs to be part of the teaching.  Do you bin Swift and Twain into “political, no place in English literature” for A Modest Propsal and Huck Finn…or are they a “period piece” or  “written for purposes of humor” or some other “doesn’t fit my criteria” purpose? 

Modest Proposal can be taught for reason of rhetoric or irony or political-science, but that would be separate from reading literature. 

Yes, Twain did have political commendatory in his Huckleberry Finn but his excellence as a writer makes more of it than would a lesser writer. English class also teaches A Christmas Carol which in my personal belief (subjective) is not great literature, but it serves as a period piece just like Twain. 

In College there are more specific classes that would encompass the popular works of any given period. But in grade school English class which isn't specialized I don't think should read Dickens but with Twain a lot of his work are literary and digestible to a younger audience so he works well in getting students engaged in reading (so to speak) before jumping into much more difficult works.   

Edit: I think a Connecticut Yankee in king Arthur's Court is better but since race relations are so important to US history American teachers like focusing on Huck Finn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

The fantasy elements are a looking glass through which the social hierarchy of school, teacher student relations, and adolescents struggle are enumerated. 

 

The social hierarchy of Hogwarts bears very little resemblance to the social hierarchy of any real school, especially non-boarding ones that the majority of people go to.

I mean slightly off the subject here but one of the major issues with Harry Potter is it's incredibly classist for a book written by someone who sometimes  sat all day in a cafe coz she couldn't afford central heating all the time. So I don't think it should be taught in schools because it doesn't teach good things. However there are plenty of YA or other non-'classic' books that could be taught.


 

That said, butterweedstover showing, as he did in that last topic, the same contempt for actual engagement, thought and analysis as he did before, disguised under a claim for wanting to see people think, so I'm not sure it's worth engaging too strongly whether one believes Harry Potter should be taught in schools or not. Y'all aren't gonna get anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

That said, butterweedstover showing, as he did in that last topic, the same contempt for actual engagement, thought and analysis as he did before, disguised under a claim for wanting to see people think, so I'm not sure it's worth engaging too strongly whether one believes Harry Potter should be taught in schools or not. Y'all aren't gonna get anywhere.

Yeah, I remember the is SFF Lit topic from not too long ago which is where my whole Lit snob thing comes from. So basically, what you said here.

My thing with Harry Potter, which I quite like, to be clear, is not whether it should or not be taught in any class, it's the idea expressed that it would tell a reader ANYTHING about 1990s England. I can't even think of anything that would really clarify the time period. I think maybe a playstation is mentioned in the first book, maybe? That aside there's nothing about the real world in those books. At all. A bit like using Shakespeare's Richard III in a history course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

And yes, plenty of people read Harry Potter alongside Chaucer.  I don't particularly think Harry Potter is anything amazing but your entire argument is entirely dependent on aesthetics purely born of ivory tower pretentions.  I literally read the first two Harry Potter books the summer before my senior year of highschool while reading Chaucer and Shakespeare.  I'm sure I'm not alone in enjoying and literature all over this analytic to high art scale you're basing your argument on.   It didn't poison my brain or make me unable to appreciate the old classy  shit.  

Ok I can't get this to add to my last post, but, this^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

 

Lets start here: Do you think Harry Potter should be part of an English Class Curriculum? 

Harry Potter specifically?  More like "could be taught" than "should be taught".  On the other hand there are plenty of works in a similar vein (or marketing classification, really, as @polishgenius mentioned other YA books).  Robin Hobb, Cynthia Voight, I could easily see being taught in a highschool English class.  

I really do think that some of your criteria boils down to how a specific book has been marketed over the actual text. 

Would you care to address any of the stuff I asked you about earlier re: Baldwin?

Or why Chaucer is more appropriate (using your criteria) than Harry Potter?

For more contemporary stuff, Sherman Alexie is clearly making some specific [political] analysis and criticisms, but I dare anyone to read Reservation Blues and tell me it isn't literary art.  Same goes for Annie Dillard's The Living, which is a historical fiction describing the settling/colonizing of Bellingham Bay, Washington, by white people, striving for a high degree of historical accuracy, but also is a deeper mediation on death and mortality than you'll find in Shakespeare.  

Same for Patrick O'Brian and Hillary Mantel, and Clavell's Shogun, when it comes to historical fiction.  That shit is as good as any writing out there.

How would you place things like Waiting for Godot, or Mother Night and Her Children

eta: You've mentioned Bloom, we know he likes McCarthy and Pynchon, how do you reconcile thier stuff? Much of which depends on being an accurate period piece; in Pynchon's case he makes some pretty clear criticism and analysis of the times, whereas McCarthy goes to great lengths go be as accurate as possible, especially with his Border Trilogy and Blood Meridian, going so far as to not use any anachronisms, even learning Spanish to be able to write the books to his vision.

How are the Aubrey/ Maturin novels any different than Blood Meridian as far as being literature?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...