Cecelia Ahern - hack, PS, I hate you, you suck

CDfm · 31-01-2009 12:40am

Acacia wrote: »

So what if he likes Yeats? How does this make him the 'arch-literati'? Tbh, I would be pretty annoyed at being labeled that way were I donegalfella.

I'm not entirely sure you're familiar with the teaching of English at secondary level. That's not meant to sound condescending but it seems you don't know exactly what's on the course. For the Leaving and Junior Cert exams,Paper 1 is generally involved with functional writing (letters, newspapers, reviews, etc). Paper 2 is involved with poetry, literature, drama and all the rest. So, I believe both literature and functional writing is covered- so what's the problem?

In the case that people don't have reading and writing skills after primary school, I believe it is the fault of the primary school teacher.

That's fair enough if you don't like cerrtain writers, but you seem to basically arguing ''I don't like the Brontes / Dickens/ Shakespeare and I think Cecelia Aherne is better, therefore I think Aherne should be taught in schools instead''.

You dont understand but he likes Joyce too.

But the Brontes and Shakespeare are period pieces and I cant see why they are studied TBH.

Acacia · 31-01-2009 1:02am

CDfm wrote: »

You dont understand but he likes Joyce too.

But the Brontes and Shakespeare are period pieces and I cant see why they are studied TBH.

Liking Joyce and Yeats doesn't make him a literati. That's just his personal taste. Just like liking Cecelia Aherne doesn't make one a bimbo.

I don't see how being a 'period piece' equates to them not being studied? Mozart is 'period music'- should he not be studied by music students? Perhaps they should study Beyoncé and Katy Perry instead. They are more accessible after all.

Permabear · 31-01-2009 2:22am

This post has been deleted.

turgon · 31-01-2009 1:53pm

CDfm wrote: »

I would add PS I love you to it as a reality check.

For what, how bad books can be??

In any field of study as you go on you progress in knowledge etc etc. For example in Maths we learn how to add first, then a few bits, and then some algebra and some differentiation. It would be ridiculous if average secondary students were still learning to add, don't you think?

What your suggesting is that the kids learn to read at a basic level in primary school, and then they go onto to secondary school where there kept at the same level of basic shallow writing. Instead as they progress the books they read should become deeper and more literary like as that is what is called progress, which is one of the ideas of education.

CDfm · 31-01-2009 4:11pm

Acacia wrote: »

Liking Joyce and Yeats doesn't make him a literati. That's just his personal taste. Just like liking Cecelia Aherne doesn't make one a bimbo.

I don't see how being a 'period piece' equates to them not being studied? Mozart is 'period music'- should he not be studied by music students? Perhaps they should study Beyoncé and Katy Perry instead. They are more accessible after all.

My point is that English study should be split between English language and english literature at school. As competence in one doesnt nesscessarily mean competence in the other.

Cecilia Aherne is more of a role model then the Brontes who all died young and only one married or had a relationship.Emo is as emo does. As a period book Wuthering Heights has its place but as english literature to influence young impressionable minds it should be consigned to the recycling bin with Peig.

CDfm · 31-01-2009 4:36pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Concider this.Despite all the efforts of people like you to promote a love of literature you promote a hatred of it and it is very elitist.What you promote is introspective rubbish which is only targeted towards other introspective people who like that sort of thing.

I use the car manual as an example - but when finishing secondary school can anyone actually write a description of a car radio operation with any precision?

Like it or not - you teach students not to understand literature for its merit only because its on the syllabus and the exam. Enough to get by. Yes I agree that literature has its place and the expression of higher thought is useful-but where is the fun?

Permabear · 31-01-2009 4:37pm

This post has been deleted.

CDfm · 31-01-2009 4:48pm

turgon wrote: »

For what, how bad books can be??

What your suggesting is that the kids learn to read at a basic level in primary school, and then they go onto to secondary school where there kept at the same level of basic shallow writing. Instead as they progress the books they read should become deeper and more literary like as that is what is called progress, which is one of the ideas of education.

You are unwilling to concider Cecilia Ahernes book on its own level.

I am suggesting that if you look at this as the lowest common denominator then for any student to go thru the secondary english programme and come out the other end without being able to read it is laughable.

For 25% of the adult population of Ireland not to have functional literacy shows how out of touch education is.Fail. By all means do your deep stuff but dont forget its also there fore the basics. You couldnt motivate me to read mindless drivel like the Brontes today.

CDfm · 31-01-2009 5:15pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But the reality is you are not teaching higher thought to these kids as they are not mature enough for it. If you were you would teach that Yeats was horny for Maud Gonne and got blown out. Really -the stuff taught in schools is far too heavy.Its "emo" as in emotional shoegazing stuff - a teenager might describe Keats as an "emo" poet.

The Sun story is a very good example - it is very concise and each sentence works - the most important at the start and bangs out key points in descending order of importance.Importantly it conveys a story of an individual loosing his temper and acting inappropriately.

So where is the moral. There isnt -just facts -it elimates speculation as to motives.What you see is what you get -but it does tell you it was emotionally charged.

Calina · 31-01-2009 6:10pm

I feel compelled to comment on this.

1) disclaimer: I have never read PS I Love You or any subsequent output. The last piece of chicklit which I read was probably something by Marian Keyes.

2) I have some opinions on English as it was taught when I was going through the system. Even if the details have changed, I suspect that the policy hasn't changed.

3) I have read Wuthering Heights. And Pride and Prejudice. And pretty much everything which Jane Austen has written.

4) I have read Othello plus Romeo and Juliet. I have heard of Christopher Marlowe.

__________________________

Hindsight is very good in deciding what's good, great and what's not. Being popular is not evidence of being good or bad, it's just evidence of being popular.

What society considers as good changes not unlike fashion. Hence, literary styles change. There are many genres as well. As such, I think that discussion on what constitutes literature and what does not is an elitist argument. At the end of the day, what matters more is what you enjoy reading. Pride and Prejudice and its ilk remain popular not because it's good by any literary definition of the word good - if it was, you'd be bunching it in with Ulysses which in my experience is borderline unreadable - but because people still enjoy reading it. You could, if you were a fan of Emily Bronte, claim the same for Wuthering Heights. I thought it was tripe.

No one claims that PS I love you is anything other than popular fiction. Anyone who is arguing that it is not good literature is presenting a straw man argument. The key word here is "popular" and not "great". If you don't want to read it, if you don't enjoy reading it, you're still not really entitled to castigate all those who did or do. We are not, as it happens, writing a Junior or Leaving Certificate critique of the book, we are just paying or not paying as it may happen 10.99 for the damn thing. If you are going to read too much into it just because she is who she is and you want to apply a higher level of criticism to it, then I think you are firmly in the wrong. If another unknown 20 year old managed to write it, it would not receive the same hallowed criticism. In other words, giving it greater attention for literary criticism, you fall into the same hole as those you accuse of giving her greater attention just because she's famous. You're doing exactly the same thing.

I haven't read the book, remember, but a lot of people have, some liked it, some didn't. However, the same is true for nearly all of James Joyce's output. There is nothing special about that.

With respect to English as it is taught in secondary level schools, I have always thought that it should be split into two subjects, English literature and English language. There are a number of reasons for this: 1) as noted previously, we have a comparatively low literacy rate and 2) English is also a tool for communication. When I did Leaving Certificate English, 25% of the marks were awarded for your ability to write and 75% on the literature element of the course. This compared badly to the situation with Irish where I think the split was something like 40% to 60%. Still not ideal but at least it recognised that part of the issue with languages is the need to use them to communicate effectively. It was entirely possible to prep literature answers in a way which I do not think is so easy with developing your own writing skills.

That being said, Ireland has a comparatively high rate of interest in reading - our per capita book sales for example have been said to be higher than in the UK.

I think that a lot of people who attach importance to literary values - whatever they are - miss a key problem which a lot of the rest of us have with that importance - it's that not everyone agrees. I don't, per se, care too much what people read. I do care that they have the freedom, more or less, to read what they want to read without them being overly criticised for those choices.

I do think that it is beneficial for people to read at least one Shakespeare play in their lives but I also feel that there is some scope to broaden the novel section of the course and to encourage people to read and discuss other books beyond the prescribed reading list. If the English literature course is failing to do this, then we need to ask why. I suspect that elitism is a big problem. People don't like to be instructed to read worthy books, such as, for example, Charles Dicken. Prescription can be damaging. However, with respect to major historical literary books, if they are that good, they will stand up as they have done so far. A signal number of others have not.

For me, Jane Austen is pure chicklit - just because the term only existed in the 1990s and onwards doesn't mean that the concept does not predate it by a whole lot longer.

If you stand back from this and then imply that perhaps it would be better if people didn't read at all if all they want to read is something you can only find it within yourself to disparage, then perhaps you do not really get the point of reading. All it is - regardless of what you are into - is a method of diverting yourself.

turgon · 31-01-2009 6:58pm

CDfm wrote: »

You couldnt motivate me to read mindless drivel like the Brontes today.

You couldnt motivate me to take you seriously.

DublinWriter · 31-01-2009 7:25pm

CDfm wrote: »

a teenager might describe Keats as an "emo" poet.

Oh, come on!

I will arise now, and go to Innis Free,
And in a small cabin there, listen to a Marilyn Manson CD.

CDfm · 31-01-2009 8:22pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

I will arise now, and go to Innis Free,
And in a small cabin there, listen to a Marilyn Manson CD.

LOL:p

CDfm · 31-01-2009 8:59pm

Calina wrote: »

if it was, you'd be bunching it in with Ulysses which in my experience is borderline unreadable

With respect to English as it is taught in secondary level schools, I have always thought that it should be split into two subjects, English literature and English language. There are a number of reasons for this: 1) as noted previously, we have a comparatively low literacy rate and 2) English is also a tool for communication. When I did Leaving Certificate English, 25% of the marks were awarded for your ability to write and 75% on the literature element of the course.

For me, Jane Austen is pure chicklit - just because the term only existed in the 1990s and onwards doesn't mean that the concept does not predate it by a whole lot longer.

Calina - you put it a lot better then I could.I thought I was the only person who thought of Austen and the Brontes as chicklit.

I am just saying that to get into literature you have to like the books. I have read Joyce and agree its virtually unreadable-even when you decypher it you wonder why you bothered.

I do like literature and art and am quite well read. The thing is I dont really get off on the use of language or technique.

I havent read Marian Keyes but I understand she tackles an older demographic than Aherne and wonder why Aherne can attract such criticism. Maeve Binchy doesnt attract such criticism and she was a well known journalist when she first published.

Elmo · 01-02-2009 2:09pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

Oh, come on!

I will arise now, and go to Innis Free,
And in a small cabin there, listen to a Marilyn Manson CD.

Keats not Yeats.

Surely Emily Dickinson is the Emo Poet. I always liked Emily Dickinson. She was real.

I feel a Funeral in my brain.

Permabear · 01-02-2009 2:53pm

This post has been deleted.

Acacia · 01-02-2009 5:37pm

CDfm wrote: »

My point is that English study should be split between English language and english literature at school. As competence in one doesnt nesscessarily mean competence in the other.

It is split between language and literature study! Basic literacy skills are grounded in primary school, and then more emphasis is put on using these skills to deal with difficult texts in secondary school. However, language skills are also tested in secondary school (usually in the Paper 1 of the Leaving Cert and Junior Cert syllabuses). I already explained this. Are you just ignoring this because it doesn't fit your argument?

CDfm wrote: »

Concider this.Despite all the efforts of people like you to promote a love of literature you promote a hatred of it and it is very elitist.What you promote is introspective rubbish which is only targeted towards other introspective people who like that sort of thing.

What do you mean by ''people like you''? I find it extremely insulting that you are lumping Donegalfella (and probably me too) into the narrow group of ''introspective elitists''. You're just spewing out riduculous generalsations now because you can't support your point.

Fine if you think literature is introspective rubbish. That doesn't mean it's only targeted at ''introspective people who like that sort of thing."

If you hate literature it's not the fault of those trying to promote it- it's just your own personal taste.

CDfm wrote: »

I am just saying that to get into literature you have to like the books. I have read Joyce and agree its virtually unreadable-even when you decypher it you wonder why you bothered.

The point of Joyce being virtually un-readable is because, as a Modernist writer, he was trying to push the boundaries of language and narrative.

But I suppose this doesn't matter to you as it's all just head-wrecking rubbish, I suppose.

CDfm wrote: »

Cecilia Aherne is more of a role model then the Brontes who all died young and only one married or had a relationship.Emo is as emo does. As a period book Wuthering Heights has its place but as english literature to influence young impressionable minds it should be consigned to the recycling bin with Peig.

I'm shaking my head in disbelief right now.

What does it matter if Cecelia Aherne is more of a role model than the Brontes? Not that it actually matters, but I think the Brontes are rather good models- for one thing, they were determined to write and publish their work, even though they had to write under male names. But maybe they should have focused more on getting a husband since that seems to be the most important thing.

How is it relevant that they died young ( it's not like they could avoid that! :mad:) or only one married? How does that mean their writing is in any worse than Aherne's?

''Young impressionable minds'' ? What a load of rubbish. So are students only meant to read happy-ever-after fairy tales? Y'know what, I read ''Wuthering Heights'' and I havn't wanted to hang a dog or open up coffins and lie down with the corpses inside them!

By the way, aren't you a Alice Cooper fan? I believe worried parents were saying he was bad for ''young impressionable minds'' back in the day too.

So let's see your case against the Brontes, thus far-

1. Their writing isn't based on real life (I refuted this but you've haven't responded- how surprising.)

2. They are bad 'role models'. :rolleyes:

3. The stories are 'head-wrecking mush'.

Well, so far I remain un-convinced that they should be 'thrown in the bin'.

CDfm wrote: »

Like it or not - you teach students not to understand literature for its merit only because its on the syllabus and the exam. Enough to get by. Yes I agree that literature has its place and the expression of higher thought is useful-but where is the fun?

We've discussed this ad nausem but your argument always comes back to either ''where is the fun?'' and the old ''elitist snobs'' chestnut. It's wearing a bit thin, frankly.
I also love how you keep stating your opinion as though it were an un-disputed fact - ''like it or not''....:rolleyes:

CDfm wrote: »

I do like literature and art and am quite well read. The thing is I dont really get off on the use of language or technique.

Hold on, I thought you want more emphasis to be put on language rather than literaure in schools? Or is that only when it suits your argument?

Acacia · 01-02-2009 5:55pm

Calina wrote: »

What society considers as good changes not unlike fashion. Hence, literary styles change. There are many genres as well. As such, I think that discussion on what constitutes literature and what does not is an elitist argument.

How is it elitist? You're not necessarily saying one book is 'better' than the other. Just putting it into a different category. The likes of Aherne's books have their merits, just because I wouldn't class them in the same league as 'Ulysses' it doesn't mean it's not good in its own way- it's just different.

Calina wrote: »

At the end of the day, what matters more is what you enjoy reading.

Enjoyment of reading is important- however, school should be about expanding and progressing in knowledge, not just sticking with what you already know or are good at doing, just because you enjoy it more.

Calina wrote: »

Pride and Prejudice and its ilk remain popular not because it's good by any literary definition of the word good - if it was, you'd be bunching it in with Ulysses which in my experience is borderline unreadable - but because people still enjoy reading it. You could, if you were a fan of Emily Bronte, claim the same for Wuthering Heights. I thought it was tripe.

What is a literary defintion of 'good'? Does it have to mean 'unreadable'?

I don't agree with people being 'castigated' for reading Cecelia Aherne. I do however find it amusing that anybody who likes Joyce, Yeats or the Bronte's is a literary snob and are castigated for that.

At the end of the day, yes, we all have a different tastes. There is nothing wrong with students reading whatever they want at home. The problem here though is assuming that no students whatsoever enjoy 'literature' so we might as well take it off the course for something more 'accessible'.

Acacia · 01-02-2009 6:09pm

CDfm wrote: »

But the reality is you are not teaching higher thought to these kids as they are not mature enough for it. If you were you would teach that Yeats was horny for Maud Gonne and got blown out. Really -the stuff taught in schools is far too heavy.Its "emo" as in emotional shoegazing stuff - a teenager might describe Keats as an "emo" poet.

How do you know that teenagers aren't mature enough for it? That is possibly the worst reason for taking literature off the course- based purely on the assumption that kids can't handle the themes in it. Don't underestimate teenagers. I feel you are grasping at straws here , really.

I was told that Yeats ''was horny for Maud Gonne'' in class- it influenced many of his poems. What is your point?

Your point about Keats is rubbish frankly- so what if he could be described as 'emo'? So what? Can poems only be about shiny-happy-people?

CDfm wrote: »

The Sun story is a very good example - it is very concise and each sentence works - the most important at the start and bangs out key points in descending order of importance.Importantly it conveys a story of an individual loosing his temper and acting inappropriately.

I already explained this. Students do study newspaper writing- both tabloid and broadsheet. Particularly with 'The Sun' and its ilk, attention is drawn to the exaggeration and sensationalism of the writing.

'King Lear' also deals with an individual losing his temper and acting inappropriately.

But I thought students would be too emotionally immature for this kind of stuff?

Apologies for the triple post.

Calina · 01-02-2009 6:23pm

Acacia wrote: »

How is it elitist? You're not necessarily saying one book is 'better' than the other. Just putting it into a different category. The likes of Aherne's books have their merits, just because I wouldn't class them in the same league as 'Ulysses' it doesn't mean it's not good in its own way- it's just different.

Reading through this thread is a jumble of accusations that Cecilia Aherne's output is of no literary merit. This was not brought up by people who read her work but by people who disparage it for its lack of literary merit. If it was just being put into a different category, we would not be having this discussion.

Acacia wrote: »

Enjoyment of reading is important- however, school should be about expanding and progressing in knowledge, not just sticking with what you already know or are good at doing, just because you enjoy it more.

Sorry. I thought school was supposed to encourage you to explore things further for yourself. The current English literature curriculum is about as successful in causing young people to do this as Peig was when I was studying Irish literature as a teenager. In other words, if school is about expanding and progressing in knowledge, in the field of English literature it appears to be more counterproductive than anything. Otherwise, we would not be having this discussion - again.

Acacia wrote: »

What is a literary defintion of 'good'? Does it have to mean 'unreadable'?

I do not believe it should, no. But if something is unreadable - and it is fair to say that much of James Joyce's output is for the overwhelming majority of people such - I'd question the literary merit of an unreadable work. However, I am well aware that this is a heretical comment in the field of literary criticism.

Acacia wrote: »

I don't agree with people being 'castigated' for reading Cecelia Aherne. I do however find it amusing that anybody who likes Joyce, Yeats or the Bronte's is a literary snob and are castigated for that.

Readers of Joyce, Yeates and the Brontes are not being castigated for being literary snobs in truth, they are being castigated for castigating popular literature. That is the overwhelming impression I have from this thread - that a number of people are negative about Aherne's output because it is nowhere near good enough for them. If they/you want to read Joyce or Yeats or the Brontes, that's fine.

Acacia wrote: »

At the end of the day, yes, we all have a different tastes. There is nothing wrong with students reading whatever they want at home. The problem here though is assuming that no students whatsoever enjoy 'literature' so we might as well take it off the course for something more 'accessible'.

No, I think you are misinterpreting the problem here. I don't believe in taking literature off the course for something more accessible. I do, however, believe that the selection of literature leaves a lot to be desired. If you have a literature course that leaves a significant proportion of its students disillusioned and bored with reading, then clearly the course is not working. This doesn't mean replacing Silas Marner with the Da Vinci Code but it could imply replacing it with something like the Call of the Wild, for example. Or The Princess Bride. The question that arises is where does your literature course lead you?

If the answer is "nowhere" then something, somewhere is wrong with it.

I came away from school with a deep love of the work of Patrick Kavanagh and Robert Frost. I also came away from school with zero regard for WB Yeats. But fine, at this stage, you're dealing with a question of taste and not literary merit.

CDfm · 01-02-2009 6:57pm

Elmo wrote: »

Surely Emily Dickinson is the Emo Poet

I feel a Funeral in my brain.

something was wreckin her head

CDfm · 01-02-2009 7:34pm

Calina wrote: »

Reading through this thread is a jumble of accusations that Cecilia Aherne's output is of no literary merit. This was not brought up by people who read her work but by people who disparage it for its lack of literary merit. If it was just being put into a different category, we would not be having this discussion.

Sorry. I thought school was supposed to encourage you to explore things further for yourself.

I do not believe it should, no. But if something is unreadable - and it is fair to say that much of James Joyce's output is for the overwhelming majority of people such - I'd question the literary merit of an unreadable work. However, I am well aware that this is a heretical comment in the field of literary criticism.

No, I think you are misinterpreting the problem here. I don't believe in taking literature off the course for something more accessible. .. If you have a literature course that leaves a significant proportion of its students disillusioned and bored with reading, then clearly the course is not working.

I came away from school with a deep love of the work of Patrick Kavanagh and Robert Frost. I also came away from school with zero regard for WB Yeats. But fine, at this stage, you're dealing with a question of taste and not literary merit.

I have to agree - Ahernes work is being castigated by people for its pop culture affiliation and because it describes a life not filled with sorrow and pain. Tracey Emin might describe such critics as Stuckists.

I can read Bronte and Joyce but I dont marvel at the techniques they use to convey feelings and emotions and it doesnt do it for me.Maybe their fans are stuck in the past and not open to new ideas and literature , just like latin and greek teachers in the past whose skills and teaching methods they emulate.

As a poet, Kavanagh did have his moments and certainly had more to say then Yeats. Montague considers himself a superior poet to Kavanagh and enjoys telling people so. He also tells people how when visiting Ezra Pound in an asylum in upstate New York that the staff would not leave Kavanagh out mistaking him for a patient. I dont know how true that is but Montague said it.

You can get Kavanagh without being a fan - Yeats I am not so sure.But you can recognise the techniques and learn them off enough to pass an exam at Leaving Cert.Thats a criticism third level lecturers make of first year students - is that they arrive having learned the course by rote but are not capable of original thought and analysis.

Most of all what gets me is the blandness of what is taught as literature and what is defined as having literary merit. Where is it written that literature cant be readable and enjoyable. It isn't.

Cecilia Aherne does it for young women of a certain demographic and why not.

Permabear · 01-02-2009 10:05pm

This post has been deleted.

Blush_01 · 01-02-2009 11:36pm

I think a fundamental missing piece to this preposterous jigsaw is the fact that there are a number of academic streams within the Irish education system, and English is divided into at least ordinary and higher level. Surely that illustrates a concerted effort to adjust the course for those either not able for or not interested in the higher elements of English literature while still developing their rudimentary English skills. There is no need to divide English and English Literature. Am I missing something here?

Nobody denies that Austen is the chick-lit of her era. That was never called into question. The important thing is that her literature has endured - if I come back in two centuries and Cecelia Aherne is still as popular as she is today I'll apologise for calling her writing unreadable. Until that time, I'm entitled to consider Austen's work of more merit than Aherne's. I'll still read Hardy before Dan Browne for the exact same reasons - not only do I find the writing style more to my tastes, but the literature has endured through the ages.

The Bronte's wrote in the gothic era, they were of an Irish background, and gothic writing was largely Irish - so what if it's considered emo by some? As for the Bronte sisters being poor examples, how does Aherne's personal life recommend herself as a role model for anyone?

I feel that half the "facts" being bandied about here are less about the literature, and more about disproving the popularity of classical literature at any cost. So what if it's not your cup of tea?

Surely education is about widening your horizons and exercising your brain in as far as is possible? Does anyone genuinely believe that higher level students should focus on material that has been designed to cater for the desires (and not needs) of the lowest common denominator? Some people don't want to read subtitles on the tv, they're so lazy. I'm not talking about people with literacy issues, that's a seperate matter. I'm talking about people who are simply not in the slightest bit interested in anything even vaguely academic. How much more dumbing down does the average Irish student need?

Until I was introduced to a number of different writers in an academic setting, I would probably never have considered reading their literature. Some of my favourite writers and poets would probably remain unknown to me. I consider myself to have had a very good education and would be saddened at the thoughts of students being forced to limit their mental horizons due to the ignorance - not the inability, but the blatant ignorance - of others.

I am neither a dreamer, nor a poet. I merely believe that there is no point in limiting everyone for the sake of few. Not everybody will be of an A standard, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be encouraged to strive for it.

CDfm · 02-02-2009 12:17am

Blush_01 wrote: »

I think a fundamental missing piece to this preposterous jigsaw is the fact that there are a number of academic streams within the Irish education system, and English is divided into at least ordinary and higher level.

Nobody denies that Austen is the chick-lit of her era. That was never called into question. The important thing is that her literature has endured - if I come back in two centuries and Cecelia Aherne is still as popular as she is today

The Bronte's wrote in the gothic era, they were of an Irish background, and gothic writing was largely Irish - so what if it's considered emo by some? As for the Bronte sisters being poor examples, how does Aherne's personal life recommend herself as a role model for anyone?

Surely education is about widening your horizons and exercising your brain in as far as is possible? Does anyone genuinely believe that higher level students should focus on material that has been designed to cater for the desires (and not needs) of the lowest common denominator?

I am neither a dreamer, nor a poet. I merely believe that there is no point in limiting everyone for the sake of few. Not everybody will be of an A standard, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be encouraged to strive for it.

Your logic here is unfathonable. You think that offering an ordinary level course excuses drab literary content of the higher level course. Not so. Its required for the points for college entry doncha know.

As for the Brontes or is it Prunty's having an Irish connection - well so whats your point? In my book its "gothic" - the way the italians used the word to describe something crude and tasteless.

The Brontes works may have literary merit but they are painful and mawkish reads. Wuthering Heights has poor narrative with characters fliitting in and out. I can't think of any plusses for inflicting it on anyone.

Its fine as a college text for someone studying English and the development of literature but as an english language text to teach someone to communicate -it doesnt work.

If someone wants to exercise their brain there should be a seperate english literature course. A classical option.

I think Aherne holds its own describing life in its genre as well as Bronte did with her dysfuncional Victorian melodrama.

Blush_01 · 02-02-2009 12:37am

Provide me with a logical, fathomable gap where the Irish education system has the space to adapt an optional English literature course, and what should be sacrificed in its place, and I will concede that you may have a point. Until you can do that (and I don't believe you can) I hold my position.

I didn't see the "flitting" you speak of in Wuthering Heights. It's funny, I'm not denying there's a place for Aherne's writing, or modern fiction of virtually any genre. Maeve Binchy's Circle Of Friends is (or was) on the OL Leaving Cert curriculum, and I have no problem with that, but you blatantly refuse to acknowledge that classical literature has a place anywhere in the classroom. Surely once you get to higher level for the leaving certificate you would be reasonably expected to have mastered basic communication, and the point of higher level education is that you're being educated to a higher than ordinary or basic level? (The clue is actually in the name here.) Being honest, I don't think Aherne's literature is not taxing enough to become a core text for leaving cert students - even at ordinary level. Binchy is superior, due to her ability to construct a paragraph which won't make someone's eyes bleed. In 2200 who is more likely to still be read, Aherne or Binchy?

Things don't survive for centuries for no reason CD. Unless you think there's some huge conspiracy to bore the masses for centuries to come. In which case, who gets the royalties, now that the writings in question are out of copyright?

CDfm · 02-02-2009 12:42am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just as you say people should be free to read Aherne-I believe no-one should be compelled to study the Brontes or Yeats.

Well I have slagged off Ulysses in the past as being low grade porn masquerading as high class literature - a bit smartarse as most English porn published between the wars was published in Paris.Joyce had no qualms of using his own relationship with Nora as material for his books. Beckett's "Waiting for Godot" is as excruciating as anything by Ibsen - lack of plot and structure. Its supposed to be anarchy to rebel against a literary structure?!

Im so sorry that I dont want my mind expanded in that direction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSHaCzb3yYk

CDfm · 02-02-2009 12:59am

Blush_01 wrote: »

Provide me with a logical, fathomable gap where the Irish education system has the space to adapt an optional English literature course..

I didn't see the "flitting" you speak of in Wuthering Heights.

Things don't survive for centuries for no reason CD. Unless you think there's some huge conspiracy to bore the masses for centuries to come. In which case, who gets the royalties, now that the writings in question are out of copyright?

I am not arguing that Aherne is LC material or that its beautifully written- but it has every right to be there if Wuthering Heights is. I think the Literati among you are finding it difficult to accept that some of us hate the books and writers you revere with a passion you can only imagine.

THe books probably survived because they recieved some sort of cult status in academia that has led to them being studied as classics not on their own right or merit.

Lets do Bronte because its her turn or because it was taught before. Money for old rope and it doesnt challenge those teaching English to come up with anything more suitable or worthwhile.

02-02-2009 2:08am

CDfm wrote: »

I am not arguing that Aherne is LC material or that its beautifully written- but it has every right to be there if Wuthering Heights is. I think the Literati among you are finding it difficult to accept that some of us hate the books and writers you revere with a passion you can only imagine.

THe books probably survived because they recieved some sort of cult status in academia that has led to them being studied as classics not on their own right or merit.

Lets do Bronte because its her turn or because it was taught before. Money for old rope and it doesnt challenge those teaching English to come up with anything more suitable or worthwhile.

Also, the Brontes are women and they need balance. Woolf is far superior but maybe too difficult for school.

CDfm · 02-02-2009 9:36am

994 wrote: »

Also, the Brontes are women and they need balance. Woolf is far superior but maybe too difficult for school.

Not because the books are written by women- but because they are just one genre. I havent read Woolf - but surely there are challenging books other then the Brontes that aren't so turgid.

Wuthering Heights doesnt just challenge - it bores.

And why no autobiographies?

Permabear · 02-02-2009 10:37am

This post has been deleted.

CDfm · 02-02-2009 11:37am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What made Ulysses racy was the sex. Im not attacking it.You might as well raise the Oz magazine obsenity trial in the early 1970s or the furore over Lady Chatterly's Lover. They don't live up to their reputation.If I liken it to psychedelic music of the 60s or progresive rock of the 70s -then modernist is just a genre. The "anarchy" that shocked London audiences would now be labeled alternative or independent - not a mainstream taste.

It was just a little rebellion and not really significant to anyone other then those involved. In the same way the Oz trial is only significant because of its participants and their subsequent success and because it was obsenity. Other then that it was "studenty" and rebelling againstthe "man".

I feel the same is true of the Brontes -its a specialist genre. It has its place -just not on the LC course and while many love the book and genre-many hate it.

You may love "Wuthering Heights" but you are afraid to admit that it has its limitations as a primer for comparative literature. For a guy with a wide and eclectic taste , it surprises me that you haven't suggested alternatives.

Blush_01 · 02-02-2009 10:02pm

CDfm wrote: »

Not because the books are written by women- but because they are just one genre. I havent read Woolf - but surely there are challenging books other then the Brontes that aren't so turgid.

Wuthering Heights doesnt just challenge - it bores.

And why no autobiographies?

What's Hugh Leonard's Home Before Night then? Or Maya Angelou's I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings?

There are a variety of genres covered on the leaving certificate course. We never read Wuthering Heights as part of my course. Amongst others, we read the above, Amongst Women, The Plough and The Stars...

You'd swear Wuthering Heights was the only book on the Senior cycle curriculum. It's simply an accessible option which can be used in the classroom to introduce teenagers to the genre of literature.

Bloody hell, is the aim of the leaving cert to teach students to do the bare minimum, or to look at things they may not have immediately chosen? Whether you liked it or not, you read Wuthering Heights. You had that opportunity, and you chose for yourself whether you liked it or not. Why choose to limit other people's experience because you decide you don't like something? Rather than considering expansion, you're looking for a contraction of the English education received by students. That makes little or no sense.

CDfm · 02-02-2009 10:26pm

Blush_01 wrote: »

What's Hugh Leonard's Home Before Night then? Or Maya Angelou's I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings.. Wuthering Heights as part of my course. Amongst others, we read the above, Amongst Women, The Plough and The Stars...

You'd swear Wuthering Heights was the only book on the Senior cycle curriculum. It's simply an accessible option which can be used in the classroom to introduce teenagers to the genre of literature.

Bloody hell, is the aim of the leaving cert to teach students to do the bare minimum, ....... you're looking for a contraction of the English education received by students. That makes little or no sense.

I see what you mean but can you get what I mean. There is a place for fluff and bang bang. Even for books that are bad "literature" (I dont believe there is such a thing) yet good fun.

An academic might like Wuthering Heights and it might get chosen as the classroom text. Flann O Brien complained about the Cult of Joyce. So we have cult books creaping in without ever brightening up the syllabus:(

I would probably added Anthony Burgess.

The English Course neither teaches a love of reading and books or effective communication. Thats how it falls down. It needs to be split into Lit and Language. It doesnt "rawk" as it is.

Permabear · 02-02-2009 10:39pm

This post has been deleted.

CDfm · 02-02-2009 11:15pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What made Ulysses racy was the filth of it:)

I'm not saying that WH is not a good piece of literature or is not intellectually challenging. Maybe Hardy is more worthy but not all Victorian literature is accessable and I question period pieces on that basis.

It might interest you to know that the first book I really "got" was a translation of Mother Courage and her Children by Brecht that I read at 19 probably in spite of my school education. I wouldn't inflict it on others but it gave me a benchmark I would never have gotten from Shakespeare.

WH is not a "gateway" book whereas P.S. I Love You could be for some.

Elmo · 02-02-2009 11:38pm

"Sam, who?" is good old American fair. But then it has both Jennifer Espanito (sp?) and Christina Applegate which helps.

Blush_01 · 02-02-2009 11:48pm

CDfm wrote: »

I see what you mean but can you get what I mean. There is a place for fluff and bang bang. Even for books that are bad "literature" (I dont believe there is such a thing) yet good fun.

An academic might like Wuthering Heights and it might get chosen as the classroom text. Flann O Brien complained about the Cult of Joyce. So we have cult books creaping in without ever brightening up the syllabus:(

I would probably added Anthony Burgess.

The English Course neither teaches a love of reading and books or effective communication. Thats how it falls down. It needs to be split into Lit and Language. It doesnt "rawk" as it is.

And economics/physics/chem/home ec/history of art does? Are you going to split physics into application and theory, and teach them as two separate courses? Economics in macro and micro? It's not feasible. You have yet to give me a workable example of how it could - you also know that in practice it would fail miserably because it's a component of the overall, not a whole in and of itself.

Elmo · 02-02-2009 11:52pm

English Lit and English Language could be thought as 2 separate subjects.

This goes for most Languages.

English Language should be a core subject while English Lit should be an optional one.

MaryCat! · 02-02-2009 11:59pm

LOL! at the tangent the thread is taking! Cecilia Ahearn to James Joyce!! Inevitable in a way i suppose!!;)

LOL! i actually quite enjoy her books! I read P.S. before all the hype about it, and I thought it was pretty good. But I was shocked at how big it became

CDfm · 03-02-2009 12:00am

Blush_01 wrote: »

And economics/physics/chem/home ec/history of art does? Are you going to split physics into application and theory, and teach them as two separate courses? Economics in macro and micro? It's not feasible. You have yet to give me a workable example of how it could - you also know that in practice it would fail miserably because it's a component of the overall, not a whole in and of itself.

You know its different because its communication and literature.

And it may not be such a bad skill to teach precision in english as we do in other disciplines.It pains me to say this but it is split in the UK.

When you look at it classical training and Latin and Greek was for thought and english for communication. When the classics stopped being thought in schools there was a void. Now for some there is a blur.

Permabear · 03-02-2009 12:02am

This post has been deleted.

Blush_01 · 03-02-2009 12:22am

CDfm wrote: »

You know its different because its communication and literature.

And it may not be such a bad skill to teach precision in english as we do in other disciplines.It pains me to say this but it is split in the UK.

When you look at it classical training and Latin and Greek was for thought and english for communication. When the classics stopped being thought in schools there was a void. Now for some there is a blur.

The British education system is also markedly different to the Irish one. For one, most Irish secondary schools are directly comparable with eachother. For another, we specialise less and later.

Nevyn · 03-02-2009 3:44am

Twas funny to see every desk at the polling office at the last election had one of her books on the table being 'read' by the polling officers.

Yes anything which gets a person started and reading is a good thing but
even considering differences in taste and the need for bubble gum reading I still
come back to the same comment about her books which is
" they cut down prefectly good trees to prinit this dross".

03-02-2009 4:03am

Thaedydal wrote: »

Twas funny to see every desk at the polling office at the last election had one of her books on the table being 'read' by the polling officers.

Yes anything which gets a person started and reading is a good thing but
even considering differences in taste and the need for bubble gum reading I still
come back to the same comment about her books which is
" they cut down prefectly good trees to prinit this dross".

Have you actually ever read her though?

CDfm · 03-02-2009 10:49am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I just don't like WH. Its not a good primer to learn about literature with. So as a book I don't like it and as a textbook I dont like it.

You may look at reading as a "scholar" -I don't. I didn't learn how to "read" at school but from finding one phrase in a biography(forget whose but a Cork writer who was Marxist & youth to war of independence?) and that got me reading Marxist socioligy to understand his outlook.

Kavanagh and Pound I read after meeting Montague at a function that I got tickets for from an English ascendency chappie who had loaned furniture to Fota House. Joyce - I read because of the gossip - and do think those post modernists are conceited. Im not saying they were not clever but Joyce was "up his own arse" - I agree with Flann O'Brien about the Cult of Joyce.

Brecht - then its not hard to see that if I prefer him that Ibsen and Beckett will not be for me -whereas O'Casey might. Shakespeare I dont like- maybe the school association instilled a hatred.

Whats wrong with being able to appreciate the writting in the Sun or being able to read a car manual and look up what you dont know. Education should teach those skills. I happened accross them and it was no thanks to school.

Later when I went to college - I was able to use the skills and used them to get a degree with little or no work.

I just happen to think that the skill to read a car manual and look stuff up is very important however you develop it.

Andy McNab is my current favorite. His style of English and anyone who reads Tim Collins' speech will understand while well written it was just what guys didnt want to hear.

Hrududu · 03-02-2009 12:00pm

The English Course neither teaches a love of reading and books or effective communication.

It did for me. You seem to think that everyone came away from LC English with the same experience you did. Discussing the literature in depth over the 2 year course was in itself an education in communication.

Eoin · 03-02-2009 12:02pm

Hrududu wrote: »

It did for me. You seem to think that everyone came away from LC English with the same experience you did.

Unfortunately I did to some degree. I will never forget how much I detested A Portrait of the Artist. It completely turned me off.

CDfm · 03-02-2009 12:16pm

Hrududu wrote: »

It did for me. You seem to think that everyone came away from LC English with the same experience you did. Discussing the literature in depth over the 2 year course was in itself an education in communication.

different strokes for different folks - it didnt work for me:eek:

CDfm · 03-02-2009 12:18pm

eoin wrote: »

Unfortunately I did to some degree. I will never forget how much I detested A Portrait of the Artist. It completely turned me off.

The Portrait of an Onanist as a Young Man is more apt.

Cecelia Ahern - hack, PS, I hate you, you suck

Comments