Why should we even read literature?

[Zorral]

5 hours ago, HoodedCrow said:

Some books are written for the ear and Harry Potter is written for the eye and the emotions.

That is no criteria for definition of what is art and what is not.  So is everything else, just about, particularly soap opera, written to appeal to the emotions. And tv is written for the eye. In other words you believe literature should be Harry Potter and not sonnets or, or say, Edgar Allan Poe's "The Raven" which has lots  for the ear, but also for the eye, not to mention the emotions, even those that harrow the soul.  You gotta get some better organized arguments than this to convince anyone who thinks differently than you do!  

[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. 

 

Apparently.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

On 8/30/2021 at 9:59 AM, 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. 

 

Maybe not Stephen King as often (due to the R rated nature of his books), but lots of YA novels are now used in high school classes.

English class isn't about the usage of English language--that's a part of it, but it's more complex than that.

On 8/31/2021 at 10:15 AM, 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.  

Disagree.

Reading Harry Potter still would allow students to learn about skills and content taught in English classrooms: plot structure, characters, setting, themes vs central ideas, etc. There is actually very little in a general English classroom that couldn't be fulfilled by books like Harry Potter.

Teaching the classics is a tiny fraction of the academic standards we're responsible for. I don't advocate for getting rid of classic literature, but the canon contains no special qualities that regular, modern fiction doesn't--except the context of a time you didn't live in. In fact, many of the "classics" were, at one time, considered fiction written for entertainment.

[butterweedstrover]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Apparently.

Kind of a delayed reaction...  

Did you come back just to say that? 

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Kind of a delayed reaction...  

Did you come back just to say that? 

No, was referring to the fact that you have once again abandoned engaging, but this time did so after quoting a passage with a bunch of questions directed to you, and then said "wait let's start here" and then disappeared when I answered. 

 

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

that regular, modern fiction doesn't--except the context of a time you didn't live in. In fact,

That's a, if not the, primary objective of courses like mine: to teach (college level) student there is a past and a history for everything. It's astonishing what college level students do not know and have never learned through all their pre-college education -- there is such a thing as a past and history.  Secondary objective -- to learn what that means, beginning with 'this' is 'how/why we got here, right now'. Nothing happens in a vacuum though they seem to believe it does, particularly fame and celebrity, which, achieving for themselves, is the primary, if not only, goal they possess.  Both are nearly impossible to teach these days, except for the few exceptional students are honestly want to, and care to, "know stuff."

[HoodedCrow]

That’s one more thing that I liked in HP. The kids wanted to know some things, teach themselves things and break into the restricted area.

 

 

[butterweedstrover]

42 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

No, was referring to the fact that you have once again abandoned engaging, but this time did so after quoting a passage with a bunch of questions directed to you, and then said "wait let's start here" and then disappeared when I answered. 

 

Oh. I didn't respond because there is such a large gap between our positions that it must come down to "agree to disagree." 

I didn't want to come off as rude and attacking your opinion would be fruitless. I think if someone like Robin Hobb was taught in a standard english class the entire discipline would be taken as a non-serious education compared to biology, history, or mathematics. 

It is rather funny to think of a class room discussion debating the intricate world-building of the farseer trilogy and arguing about the in world politics and hypothesizing on what tragic event will happen to Fitz next. Its all fun with friends but if I were a parent I would not want my child to waste their time. 

In the end, the reason people read old books in school is because they have achieved something no modern book has. They have withstood the test of time. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Oh. I didn't respond because there is such a large gap between our positions that it must come down to "agree to disagree." 

I didn't want to come off as rude and attacking your opinion would be fruitless. I think if someone like Robin Hobb was taught in a standard english class the entire discipline would be taken as a non-serious education compared to biology, history, or mathematics. 

It is rather funny to think of a class room discussion debating the intricate world-building of the farseer trilogy and arguing about the in world politics and hypothesizing on what tragic event will happen to Fitz next. Its all fun with friends but if I were a parent I would not want my child to waste their time. 

In the end, the reason people read old books in school is because they have achieved something no modern book has. They have withstood the test of time. 

Yeah, you're not actually addressing anything.  Still not answering any questions that I or others have asked you.  Don't worry, won't bother you anymore with having to defend your position.

eta:

What's rude is constantly cherry picking shit, like "Robin Hobb", without addressing anything else that's in there.  I answered what you asked me, what's rude is not reciprocating.  

 

[Ormond]

On 8/31/2021 at 11:21 AM, Zorral said:

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.

I was quite engaged by the Harry Potter bookes when I read them and I was in my 50s then. And I know several other people about my age who were, too. So I'm not going to trust you on that, sorry. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

The thing about Rowling and King (and Tolkien, arguably another elephant in the room) is that they're cultural touchstones. Having a shared basis of communication and reference is pretty important to modern society. If no-one reads each other's books... how are we supposed to relate to each other?

[The Marquis de Leech]

5 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

In the end, the reason people read old books in school is because they have achieved something no modern book has. They have withstood the test of time. 

Oh, agreed, Problem is, the stuff that really withstands the test of time... it often ain't highbrow. People still read Conan Doyle and Rider Haggard, after all, while in fifty years, people will be reading Rowling and Tolkien (maybe not King).  But most contemporary literary fiction will be forgotten.

[Inkdaub]

Well, they have withstood the test of time by being taught in classrooms every term every year decade after decade.  They are actively maintained in that way.  There is also a significant majority of people who will assume quality or import simply because they have been told it is so.  If Stephen King is anointed by some august body and is being taught in classrooms in a hundred years, you can bet there will be a butterweedstrover 2.0 telling everyone why that's appropriate.  Unless it's Dreamcatcher being taught...that one is just real bad.

I think a mix would be best as far as classrooms go.  Hobb and Twain and Whitehead and Hugo and Alexie and Chaucer...etc whoever and whoever. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

15 hours ago, Zorral said:

That's a, if not the, primary objective of courses like mine: to teach (college level) student there is a past and a history for everything. It's astonishing what college level students do not know and have never learned through all their pre-college education -- there is such a thing as a past and history.  Secondary objective -- to learn what that means, beginning with 'this' is 'how/why we got here, right now'. Nothing happens in a vacuum though they seem to believe it does, particularly fame and celebrity, which, achieving for themselves, is the primary, if not only, goal they possess.  Both are nearly impossible to teach these days, except for the few exceptional students are honestly want to, and care to, "know stuff."

Yeah but this isn't because they aren't taught history, they have 6 to 7 years of history classes. What you're experiencing is nothing new. I'm pretty sure ancient Sumerian teachers wrote on a stone tablet similar complaints about their kids.

It could be kids now are worse than prior generations when it comes to complex subjects like history, but most people get a sense of history over a long period of time. I think this is normal because of the complex nature of the subject. Expecting an 18 year old to have a foundational understanding of historic events is probably unrealistic--it might help to focus secondary schools history lessons.

[Zorral]

They aren't taught history in middle school or h.s. for the most part, and what history they are taught is, shall we say, particularly if they come out of the south, Texas, AZ etc., false.  Then there are the students whose parents are first generation immigrants -- they know nothing of the past of this nation, and have so effortlessly absorbed hideous ideas about who African Americans are.  What else has changed since I first began is  the students full out refuse to read books for information.  If they can't get it on Youtube, they aren't going to at all.  Those who do read books at all, tend to read only Harry Potter, or other related fiction, which isn't teaching them anything.

This why the program is designed to teach what history is and why knowing the past about anything matters for the mastering of the discipline, profession, practice, for all sorts of subjects, not only history-history, but also for music, television, literature, film, art, language, law, money and so on.  

[HoodedCrow]

Texas is the decider of what goes in school text books. It’s just marketing.

[Zorral]

Assuming this was written in the attitude of  ! since the marketing is prevent the facts and truths from getting out there where young minds might possibly be influenced!  Remember the Alamo!

1 hour ago, HoodedCrow said:

Texas is the decider of what goes in school text books. It’s just marketing.

 

[HoodedCrow]

Texas is the largest customer for school textbooks. Yes, they DO (or did) set the agenda for developing minds. Not me, we had our own bull shirt. But I do at least remember where “ The Alamo” is:) 

[DireWolfSpirit]

On 8/30/2021 at 8:14 PM, butterweedstrover said:

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. 

You are convinced you have it "all worked out" I see.

 

[SeanF]

On 8/31/2021 at 8:52 PM, polishgenius said:

 

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.

That's one of the things I like about Harry Potter.  Wizarding society is so obviously a crapsack world that has never even heard of the Enlightenment.  It's a YA version of the world of The Witcher.  The rulers of this society are objectively evil people (not just Voldemort).