Why should we even read literature?

[polishgenius]

Look, you can argue whether or not one book or another deserves to be in literature courses, and argue what literature means, and argue, since you're going back to it again via stealth, over whether or not SFF can ever deserve to be thought of as real literature.


But lumping Martin, Hobb, and Erikson into one writing-style category, one you define by 'taking from Tolkien's secondary world' even though none of them share very much similarity to either Middle Earth or in how the authors use their worlds in the story compared to how Tolkien used Middle Earth in his story, for his themes etc, just shows that you don't know enough about the subject in question to be able to properly argue about it. You continue to insist on arguments against categorising SFF as literature, or worthy of learning, yet cannot stop proving you've never really sat down and thought about the SFF books you're dismissing. And like, fine, you have no obligation to do that- but if you're going to talk about them, you'd better damn well make sure you do understand them. 

[butterweedstrover]

3 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Look, you can argue whether or not one book or another deserves to be in literature courses, and argue what literature means, and argue, since you're going back to it again via stealth, over whether or not SFF can ever deserve to be thought of as real literature.


But lumping Martin, Hobb, and Erikson into one writing-style category, one you define by 'taking from Tolkien's secondary world' even though none of them share very much similarity to either Middle Earth or in how the authors use their worlds in the story compared to how Tolkien used Middle Earth in his story, for his themes etc, just shows that you don't know enough about the subject in question to be able to properly argue about it. You continue to insist on arguments against categorising SFF as literature, or worthy of learning, yet cannot stop proving you've never really sat down and thought about the SFF books you're dismissing. And like, fine, you have no obligation to do that- but if you're going to talk about them, you'd better damn well make sure you do understand them. 

I am sorry, but isn't that what this thread is about? 

I am not lumping anything together, someone mentioned Rowling, Tolkien, and Hobb (I added since he fits my example Erikson) as potentials for STANDARD English class.  

That is a pretty radical position (nothing wrong with radical positions) so I think it is incumbent on said people to explain why rather than asking "why not". 

And there is nothing about 'stealth' going on, there is no need to speculate on my motives. This thread is about literature taught in school. 

[Zorral]

The title of this thread is "Why Should We Even Read Literature"  not, "Is Sf/F Literature? The assumption contained in the title, and the immediate extension of that immediately after is that literature isn't worth reading so let's teach Sf/F in courses because that's what people like.  Though of course there are a whole lot of people who do like, want, and find literature extremely valuable for many, many things, though some do not.  So they just don't have to read it, do they.

OTOH, there are sf/f books that can and have gone on the reading lists for certain courses, for instance "The History of Utopias and Dystopias In the Novel."  KSRobinson is a terrific part of such a course. Other examples are rife.

 

[polishgenius]

1 minute ago, butterweedstrover said:

(I added since he fits my example Erikson)

 

He doesn't though. Apart from the fact that no-one in their right mind would recommend a 10 volume series with like 14 books worth of spinoff for a lit class, you've just added that to make the suggestion of fantasy being taught more ridiculous, he's not similar to Tolkien or Martin or Hobb (nor are Martin or Hobb similar to Tolkien, though they are similar to each other. And none of the above are similar to Rowling really at all). 

Like, I don't think any of them would necessarily be good choices for a lit class, but apart from length the reasons for that are different for all, and none of them are because those books are not discussable on an artistic/literary level as you are implying. Even the worldbuilding thing you keep going into - the way those series use the world in the story is very different for all and is something very analysable if you're talking about what makes a good story, good writing, good art.  
And other SFF books - and even short series, potentially- could be. Like I think Hunger Games is overall not that great though I liked it well enough, but you could, in a school system not put off by the violence anyway, easily use it to set up a discussion of certain narrative tropes like the hero's journey, heroic protagonists, and in the later book subversions of those things. Terry Pratchett is great and you could easily use any one of several of his books to discuss aspects of how character is used, how plot is structured, how prose is crafted. Something like Karen Lord's Redemption in Indigo is not a particularly well known book I think, yet you could easily use it in a class not only for purposes of getting kids to read an engaging story, and not only for learning about writing per se, but also however much you personally hate the idea of the real world intruding on artistic merit for a lesson on how stories from other cultures than ours may have different tropes, archetypes etc. 

There's loads like that. There's no reason to stick to the 'classics', people just do because the plans for what to do and how to break it down are already out there. Depending on the system that choice may be down to the individual teacher, or to the system with limited numbers of books allowed coz at the end of the year you have to do an exam so you get like options out of three, but someone is choosing to go to same-old instead of structuring lessons around new, and those reasons are sometimes fine and sometimes not good at all and often absolutely zero to do with the suitability of the actual classic to get classes engaged with literature however you define what literature is. 

 

4 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

This thread is about literature taught in school. 

Sure, but in talking about that that you're just roundaboutedly going back to the definition of literature subject that your previous topic flamed out on, and adding even more barriers to considering SFF great literature. Like, the OP made it about how do you engage kids in reading and what kind of books there are and new things coming in and you came in all 'no but' and made the topic all about defining just what is allowed and isn't, by your very narrow definition of what is allowed and rather personalised interpretation of what English classes in school are for.  

 

 

 

How do we get kids to read? Give them books they'll enjoy. How to get to engage? Give them books they'll enjoy and can critically engage with. That's glib, it's not an easy task, but it's not a task at all served by throwing a way a bunch of books because they have worldbuilding or politics in them.

[sologdin]

Said authors do not (in the majority of cases) write to provide an audience with a sort of escapism that allows them to live vicariously through their story and develop emotional attachments to fictional characters. 

who cares about the author's intention? it's not really relevant.

But let us not move the goal post now, we were talking about authors who take from Tolkien's secondary world

no one's moving a goal post.  my milton example (which is not odd?) illustrates that the characteristic you've claimed as disqualifying for certain types of speculative fiction also arises in regularly canonical literary texts.  this means that the characteristic is itself not disqualifying--there must be some other criterion that underlies the disqualification, if it is to be principled.

as to the rest, i wouldn't add any of the texts noted to a syllabus for a course. i don't really object to anyone else doing so, though.

all of the colloquy about the relationship of setting to story is not obvious, however--it definitely needs developed further in order to be persuasive.  therefore the assignment for you this week is to draft a three-thousand word essay to lay out this argument in MLA style.  it will count as 25% of your grade in this course, so please do not wait until the last minute. 

please be advised that your argument seems to depend on a narrow definition of literature, which is only slightly stated.  maybe review things like this and then resubmit?

[butterweedstrover]

3 hours ago, sologdin said:

Said authors do not (in the majority of cases) write to provide an audience with a sort of escapism that allows them to live vicariously through their story and develop emotional attachments to fictional characters. 

who cares about the author's intention? it's not really relevant.

But let us not move the goal post now, we were talking about authors who take from Tolkien's secondary world

no one's moving a goal post.  my milton example (which is not odd?) illustrates that the characteristic you've claimed as disqualifying for certain types of speculative fiction also arises in regularly canonical literary texts.  this means that the characteristic is itself not disqualifying--there must be some other criterion that underlies the disqualification, if it is to be principled.

as to the rest, i wouldn't add any of the texts noted to a syllabus for a course. i don't really object to anyone else doing so, though.

all of the colloquy about the relationship of setting to story is not obvious, however--it definitely needs developed further in order to be persuasive.  therefore the assignment for you this week is to draft a three-thousand word essay to lay out this argument in MLA style.  it will count as 25% of your grade in this course, so please do not wait until the last minute. 

please be advised that your argument seems to depend on a narrow definition of literature, which is only slightly stated.  maybe review things like this and then resubmit?

No really, this is all rather scattershot now. I did not mean authorial intention, I meant the actual characterizations and story were not made so readers befriended these characters or built emotional attachments.  

In the case of Milton, I have only read Paradise Lost. Can you identify to whom in that book it would be normal for a reader to build a close friendship to or vicariously project one's self onto said character, because I cannot imagine which.  

[El Kabong]

3 hours ago, sologdin said:

Said authors do not (in the majority of cases) write to provide an audience with a sort of escapism that allows them to live vicariously through their story and develop emotional attachments to fictional characters. 

who cares about the author's intention? it's not really relevant.

But let us not move the goal post now, we were talking about authors who take from Tolkien's secondary world

no one's moving a goal post.  my milton example (which is not odd?) illustrates that the characteristic you've claimed as disqualifying for certain types of speculative fiction also arises in regularly canonical literary texts.  this means that the characteristic is itself not disqualifying--there must be some other criterion that underlies the disqualification, if it is to be principled.

as to the rest, i wouldn't add any of the texts noted to a syllabus for a course. i don't really object to anyone else doing so, though.

all of the colloquy about the relationship of setting to story is not obvious, however--it definitely needs developed further in order to be persuasive.  therefore the assignment for you this week is to draft a three-thousand word essay to lay out this argument in MLA style.  it will count as 25% of your grade in this course, so please do not wait until the last minute. 

please be advised that your argument seems to depend on a narrow definition of literature, which is only slightly stated.  maybe review things like this and then resubmit?

*slow clap*

[Nabarg]

@Butterweedstrover: Which characters in the Silmarillion would it be normal for a reader to build a close friendship to or vicariously project one’s self onto said character?   Or in the Malazan Book of the Fallen? (As for Milton, I would guess Satan for some, Adam for others depending on religious inclination, if you are going to talk about things in this way).

[sologdin]

a lot of folks get aroused by abdiel.  but any character can be the basis of this sort of identificatory merger.  

[butterweedstrover]

On 9/27/2021 at 5:24 PM, Nabarg said:

@Butterweedstrover: Which characters in the Silmarillion would it be normal for a reader to build a close friendship to or vicariously project one’s self onto said character?   Or in the Malazan Book of the Fallen? (As for Milton, I would guess Satan for some, Adam for others depending on religious inclination, if you are going to talk about things in this way).

Really this is the problem with this entire discussion. People are changing the subject for different matters and shuffling them around to make a larger point. 

I was mentioning Harry Potter not the world building text books like the Silmarillion and Malazan whose primary affront is world-building. I mentioned world building separately and why as the primary meat and bone to a story it has no place in school or literary class.  

On 9/27/2021 at 4:20 PM, El Kabong said:

*slow clap*

Sologdin seems to be moving around the pieces to reply to different elements while never justifying at what point he/she disagrees. 

First Sologdin says that we are not talking about Tolkien secondary world building (even though we were), then he brings up Milton out of the bloom and does not explain how he is relevant. 

What are you impressed by? 

23 hours ago, sologdin said:

a lot of folks get aroused by abdiel.  but any character can be the basis of this sort of identificatory merger.  

This is just sad. What is the point of making a glib comment which total dodges the point of discussion? 

Sexual attraction is not of what we spoke, and if they did that would tell us more about the reader. What the subject was (which you seem to forget) is having the primary focus on characters who readers like or relate to driving further interest in the story. It is a type of vicarious storytelling technique where readers make imaginary friends similar to their own or project their own selves onto the character and read on to find out what happens next. 

That is where the multi-volume format come from which is so unbecoming for classroom studies.  

It is difficult to communicate with you when you dodge and change the subject. El Kabong is impressed but that is per usual given his unserious posturing. 

[El Kabong]

Per usual? I've been posting here for maybe a month. No idea what you are on about.

[butterweedstrover]

9 minutes ago, El Kabong said:

Per usual? I've been posting here for maybe a month. No idea what you are on about.

Several times towards me on this very thread. 

I am not a very active user anymore, but your posts are filled on this thread replying to me or someone replying to my post but never with substance, just snide insinuations. 

You can imagine how annoying that becomes.

[El Kabong]

lol, not trying to "insinuate" anything. I think you are a lit snob, and you've been called on it a lot better than I ever could by users much smarter than me. 

[sologdin]

First Sologdin says that we are not talking about Tolkien secondary world building (even though we were), then he brings up Milton out of the bloom and does not explain how he is relevant. 

the milton point is to illustrate that the principle you've used to disqualify certain texts is something that is in the reader, not in the texts.  because it applies to milton, the principle is not very useful in arguing that something is not fit for a course.  (i don't think I wrote that we weren't discussing tolkienian doctrine; that would be odd, considering i was actively discussing it?) because it is a reader-oriented criterion, rather than text-oriented, it follows that the principle should be used to disqualify students from the course roster, not texts from the course syllabus.

 

What is the point of making a glib comment which total dodges the point of discussion? 

Sexual attraction is not of what we spoke, and if they did that would tell us more about the reader.

not glib, and not sexual.  arouse has other registers than the erotic.  a principle of charity here would give the word a construction that bona fide signifies rather than one that is easily refuted; it's a slick use of the strawperson fallacy, interpreting a term into low-hanging fruit.  cheers.

it was nevertheless a serious point: readers identify with abdiel. one strain of argument is that milton himself identifies with abdiel. satan of course is the main character that get this sort of attachment, though--that's one of fish's points in surprised by sin, as i recall it (very specifically a reception theory accounting NB). typical of this position is blake's statement that

Quote

The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels & God, and at liberty when he wrote of Devils & Hell, is because he was a true Poet and of the Devil's party without knowing it.

pretty cool, no?

 

What the subject was (which you seem to forget) is having the primary focus on characters who readers like or relate to driving further interest in the story. It is a type of vicarious storytelling technique where readers make imaginary friends similar to their own or project their own selves onto the character and read on to find out what happens next. 

that's your argument, sure. i don't think there's anything wrong with this description of a certain subset of speculative fiction. i also agree that much of that work would not end up on any syllabus of mine--as you noted, too long for a course. it's nevertheless part of the collective experience of reading these serial fantasies, though--so i wouldn't want to belittle it.  the notion that the literary characters take on some sort of 'hauntological' quasi-existence in the affections of their readers is one of the key components of literary production; it can apply to the hunger games but also to the iliad, gravity's rainbow, emma, or doctor faustus.

 

It is difficult to communicate with you when you dodge and change the subject.

it's not about me--am unpersuaded there's been any dodging or changing by anyone.  

 

El Kabong is impressed but that is per usual given his unserious posturing. 

i think EK is very new? maybe no need to quarrel personally with new people.  not very welcoming. though i guess you are very new, too.  maybe this is a case fit for thunderdome? i leave it to the mod in charge of the 'dome to decide.

 

[Nabarg]

@Butterweedstrover: why is the worldbuilding of Silmarillion an affront, but not that of Homer or Milton? If you don’t know anything about classical mythology you will have as much trouble getting into Homer as somebody who knows nothing about Tolkien’s legendarium have. Anyway, every peace of fiction has a certain amount of worldbuilding, the difference is that mimetic fiction demands less talent from the writer, since they can count on the reader’s knowledge of the real world.

[maarsen]

6 hours ago, Nabarg said:

@Butterweedstrover: why is the worldbuilding of Silmarillion an affront, but not that of Homer or Milton? If you don’t know anything about classical mythology you will have as much trouble getting into Homer as somebody who knows nothing about Tolkien’s legendarium have. Anyway, every peace of fiction has a certain amount of worldbuilding, the difference is that mimetic fiction demands less talent from the writer, since they can count on the reader’s knowledge of the real world.

Are you calling Homer a lesser talent?

[sologdin]

homer was the JK rowling of the achaeans.

[Nabarg]

@Maarsen: I don’t consider Homer mimetic (although you could argue that he is more mimetic than Tolkien).

[sologdin]

the odyssey can be read as reasonably realist if we assume that odysseus is lying about the fanciful occurrences; being 'resourceful' is his main trait. the iliad is a bit more difficult, considering all of the supernatural stuff that occurs outside of a character's tall tale over drinks.

[FalagarV2]

On 9/29/2021 at 1:23 AM, sologdin said:

that's your argument, sure. i don't think there's anything wrong with this description of a certain subset of speculative fiction. i also agree that much of that work would not end up on any syllabus of mine--as you noted, too long for a course. it's nevertheless part of the collective experience of reading these serial fantasies, though--so i wouldn't want to belittle it.  the notion that the literary characters take on some sort of 'hauntological' quasi-existence in the affections of their readers is one of the key components of literary production; it can apply to the hunger games but also to the iliad, gravity's rainbow, emma, or doctor faustus.

 

It's interesting, in this regard, that a central exercise in later Greco-Roman education involved writing imaginative pieces (ethopoeiai) about characters from the Iliad, Odyssey or other narratives of the classical tradition's 'expanded universe', explaining their reasoning or mindset at specific events. Or that Augustine censored himself for loving Latin literature, which caused him 'to remember the wanderings of some Aeneas, while forgetting of my own wanderings, and to bewail Dido’s death because she committed suicide, while in the midst of these trifles I, wretched as could be, allowed myself to die away from you with dry eyes.' (Confessions 1.13). The ancients certainly did not think their canon void of emotional attachment or opportunities for escapism.