Teaching people to hate literature.

[sup_dude]

Hey everyone. For English the last day, we were to read and discuss an article entitled "Teaching People to Hate Literature".

It is about how the education system forces students to read too deeply into poems and more particularly, novels and how we have to tear them apart almost word for word rather than being let enjoy the writings.
As a result, it says, the natural enjoyment we get as children of books and nursery ryhmes is used up and except a select few, most adults do not enjoy reading.
Therefore secondary schools should focus more attention on introducing teenagers to the wonders of literature rather than them seeing it as a forced chore. Then, if they did want to analyze them in depth, they could in college.

I thought it was a very good topic and you would enjoy discussing it here too.

[donegalfella]

I think you're on to something here. I think we should extend your approach to other subjects, as well. We should make geography all about appreciating the joys of nature, rather than forcing students to learn boring details about maps and landscape formation. And French could be all about appreciating the wonders of French culture, instead of making students learn lists of irregular verbs. It would all be so much more fun that way.

[Plowman]

Originally Posted by donegalfella

I think you're on to something here. I think we should extend your approach to other subjects, as well. We should make geography all about appreciating the joys of nature, rather than forcing students to learn boring details about maps and landscape formation.

Really? At secondary level? That is a bit basic.

Originally Posted by donegalfella

And French could be all about appreciating the wonders of French culture, instead of making students learn lists of irregular verbs. It would all be so much more fun that way.

I don't see how this could work in a curriculum. Learning about French culture without learning the French language is a very half-baked approach to French.

Originally Posted by sup_dude

It is about how the education system forces students to read too deeply into poems and more particularly, novels and how we have to tear them apart almost word for word rather than being let enjoy the writings. ... Therefore secondary schools should focus more attention on introducing teenagers to the wonders of literature rather than them seeing it as a forced chore. Then, if they did want to analyze them in depth, they could in college.

But often we must read deeply into literature in order to discern its meaning. Casually reading literature devalues the work of the author. Writers probably toil for years, agonising over which word fits best where, only for their work to be cursorily read and dismissed because the reader makes no effort.

I know this will make me sound snobby and elitist, but anyway: that book's argument promotes sloppy, intellectual laziness.

There. I said it!

[Dades]

The hating literature idea has a point.

I have to say I did really enjoy most of what we were made read in school, though to this day I believe there was a huge amount of crap "read into" what the author was actually saying.

Fair enough something like Animal Farm, which is a political commentary, but stuff like Huckleberry Finn or Emma? Sure it refects the thinking of the day but does every nuance have to be scrutinised? Emma was a smart romantic comedy ffs!

As for poetry - any poetry sends me into convulsions. Can't stand it after they beat it to death with an iron bar in school.

So yeah! + 1 for book enjoyment appreciation !

Originally Posted by Plowman

But often we must read deeply into literature in order to discern its meaning.

You mean occasionally.

[Plowman]

Originally Posted by Dades

As for poetry - any poetry sends me into convulsions. Can't stand it after they beat it to death with an iron bar in school.

Maybe that's because you didn't understand it. Which is why a careful analysis would allow you to appreciate it!

Part of poetry's craft is the compression of meaning. And part of the reader's job is to expand it again.

Originally Posted by Dades

You mean occasionally.

No, often. Teaching literature through shallow, simplistic readings, especially at secondary level, is like teaching maths or physics through apples and oranges.

[donegalfella]

Originally Posted by Plowman

Really? At secondary level? That is a bit basic.

I don't think you picked up on the sarcasm in my post.

I know this will make me sound snobby and elitist, but anyway: that book's argument promotes sloppy, intellectual laziness.

I agree entirely!

[Plowman]

Originally Posted by donegalfella

I don't think you picked up on the sarcasm in my post.

Oh right, I didn't actually!

Phew. Literature: saved.

[Mark Hamill]

Originally Posted by Plowman

But often we must read deeply into literature in order to discern its meaning.

Who says all literature must have some deeply hidden meaning? Who says that even if all literature does, that this meaning is going to be of great relevence to the reader? There comes a point where you have to just go along and enjoy the story being presented to you. A good writer will get his meaning across without either having it bashed over your head or hidden so deep you need an excavation crew to find it. Personally I'm of the opinion that most writers (particularly poets) who claim their work has hidden meanings are either just making it up to sound more deep (there is no hidden meaning) or the entire point of their prose was an exercise in seeing how well they can hide some "meaning" they aren't really interested in, behind flowery language just to make them feel clever.

Originally Posted by Plowman

Casually reading literature devalues the work of the author. Writers probably toil for years, agonising over which word fits best where, only for their work to be cursorily read and dismissed because the reader makes no effort.

Is that not as much a failure on the writer as the reader though? Like I said, a good writer can have his meaning seep into your brain without you even realising it, the reader doesn't need a dictionary, thesauras and Eng Lit degree to get it.

Originally Posted by Plowman

I know this will make me sound snobby and elitist, but anyway: that book's argument promotes sloppy, intellectual laziness.

No it promotes actual enjoyment of literture and allows for the fact that if you have to beat some hidden meanings into someone, then the writer has failed to present the meanings in a realistic and meaningful way for the reader to actually pick up on. Then the question becomes is the reader reading out of his/her reading level or just so alien from their own experiences that they cant relate to it (ie most of the books teens are told to read in school) or was the writer more interested in clever writing than getting across his point (ie most of the poetry given to teens in schools).

[Dades]

Originally Posted by Plowman

Maybe that's because you didn't understand it.

I post about how poetry in school was over-analyzed, scrutinised and picked apart and you suggest I don't like poetry because I don't understand it? Maybe I'd like poetry if we'd been left to read it.

Originally Posted by Plowman

No, often. Teaching literature through shallow, simplistic readings, especially at secondary level, is like teaching maths or physics through apples and oranges.

This suggests to me that you believe a book must be open to multi-layed scrutiny, and that unless the author has subtexts within every plot device it's shallow or simplistic.

There's a happy medium between having kids read a book and say if they liked it or not and double-guessing the author's motive behind every paragraph.

[donegalfella]

Originally Posted by Mark Hamill

Personally I'm of the opinion that most writers (particularly poets) who claim their work has hidden meanings are either just making it up to sound more deep (there is no hidden meaning) or the entire point of their prose was an exercise in seeing how well they can hide some "meaning" they aren't really interested in, behind flowery language just to make them feel clever.

To be, or not to be--that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die, to sleep--
No more--and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to. 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep--
To sleep--perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th' oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th' unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprise of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action.

Do you think Shakespeare stuffed the above with unnecessary "flowery language," deliberately contrived to obscure the actual meaning of the passage? If so, how would you revise it for the reader who doesn't want to spend any time actually thinking about the complex nexus of metaphor, image, and seemingly self-contradicting argument that Shakespeare creates here in the mind of Hamlet?

Like I said, a good writer can have his meaning seep into your brain without you even realising it, the reader doesn't need a dictionary, thesauras and Eng Lit degree to get it.

That's a complete myth, honestly. Literature does not "seep into your brain without you even realising it," any more than differential equations "seep into your brain." Reading quality literature—in fact, reading anything beyond the infantile level of Cecelia Ahern and John Grisham—is an ongoing, conscious process of interpretation, analysis, and exegesis. It requires thought, deliberation, and sensitivity to language.

was the writer more interested in clever writing than getting across his point (ie most of the poetry given to teens in schools).

To be honest, you don't seem to understand that poetry is, by definition, highly compressed figurative language. A poet is not a politician, propagandist, or marketing expert, in that his raison d'être is not necessarily to "get across his point" to the largest possible audience in the plainest way possible.

Originally Posted by Dades

This suggests to me that you believe a book must be open to multi-layed scrutiny, and that unless the author has subtexts within every plot device it's shallow or simplistic.

All great literature is "open to multi-layered scrutiny." That is the fundamental difference between reading potboiler, throwaway fiction from the bestseller table, and reading authors such as Joyce or Proust, who spent years working on the often intricate, labyrinthine structure of their books.

There's a happy medium between having kids read a book and say if they liked it or not and double-guessing the author's motive behind every paragraph.

Honestly, do you think it's sufficient for Leaving Cert honours English for "kids" to be able to "read a book and say if they liked it or not"? Isn't that a model that should be left behind in primary school?

[Earthhorse]

Originally Posted by Plowman

I know this will make me sound snobby and elitist, but anyway: that book's argument promotes sloppy, intellectual laziness.

There. I said it!

Originally Posted by donegalfella

I agree entirely!

I don't think it's a book; it's an article, isn't it?

OP, is this the article in question?

As a result, it says, the natural enjoyment we get as children of books and nursery ryhmes is used up and except a select few, most adults do not enjoy reading.

To be honest, I think most adults would enjoy reading if they gave it the time it deserves. But we have a million distractions in front of us that take a lot less concentration. Poor book choice is also a reason I think a lot of people give up on reading. You may not enjoy anything on the curriculum you followed but that doesn't mean there isn't something out there you will enjoy.

As for over scrutinising the works in question, I think that this is sometimes the case. I remember studying Philadelphia, Here I Come for the Leaving Cert. It was entertaining and I felt I understood it well but, for the life of me, I could never answer a question on it. It seemed everything that was in it was apparent in it. Sometimes we are being asked to shed light on something the author has already made clear and apparent. And at other times, yes, I think works are torn apart page by page and paragraph by paragraph but I have to say I don't think that really starts till college.

[Meeja Ireland]

I think there are two fundamental flaws in the article. The first is in the assumption that there is anything previous to analysis. It's not as if you can ever read a book or a poem without analysing it. The process of reading involves uncovering the meaning of the sentences, and relating them to what you've already read and what you expect from what follows.

"A poem should not mean but be" is one of the stupidest things ever said, or would be if MacLeish had meant it.

The second flaw is to ignore the huge pleasure that analysis involves. He quotes Mark Twain's preface to Huckleberry Finn:

"Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot."

That's a pretty decent joke, and you could just read it and move on. But isn't it more interesting to wonder why Twain, at that time and in that place, would deny a motive or a moral to a story about a white child helping a slave to escape from the South? Or to reflect that the people most likely to be prosecuted, banished and shot in the book itself are Huck and Joe?

As soon as you start thinking about that, you have to involve all kinds of contextual issues. These don't make the book any less pleasurable, surely?

I would say that is where the article goes most wrong. It associates the boredom of certain methods of teaching with the process of analysis itself. The real goal of analysis, or one of the goals, should be to squeeze more and more pleasure out of what you're reading.

Good thread, OP. And I love the idea of exploring France's rich literary heritage by eating cheese.

[Dades]

Originally Posted by donegalfella

All great literature is "open to multi-layered scrutiny." That is the fundamental difference between reading potboiler, throwaway fiction from the bestseller table, and reading authors such as Joyce or Proust, who spent years working on the often intricate, labyrinthine structure of their books.

Drawing comparisons between 'holiday reading' and Joyce is kind of pointless here. The OP was to do with books/poems that appear on the Irish curriculum which, in the view of some of us, were over-scrutinised to the point of ridiculousness - and also of removing any joy out of the actual reading of them.

Originally Posted by donegalfella

Honestly, do you think it's sufficient for Leaving Cert honours English for "kids" to be able to "read a book and say if they liked it or not"? Isn't that a model that should be left behind in primary school?

For someone so vigorously defending the honour of analyzing literature, I would have hoped you might have given what I posted more than a cursory glance. That way you could have avoided misrepresenting my single-layered opinion.

[lemon_sherbert]

I always thought that one of the prevailing faults with the approach taken in teaching literature in school was the generalist approach. All the books we read were treated with the same standard approach; identify the theme, discuss the protagonist etc.

We never seemed to really dig into the books, discuss the relevance of the theme, examine the strengths of the moral/social message of the book. I think we spent so long looking at metaphors and similes, we lost the bigger picture. For me, enjoyment of literature comes from looking at the message of the book (a highly subjective thing), and using that as a springboard for a greater discussion of the issue. In school we rarely got past, Macbeth is ambitious, discuss. It could have been a more interesting examination of the dangers of ambition for personal gain in politics, something we could relate to in modern life, or a historical discussion. What it did instead was reward anyone who could remember enough quotes to back up their point, rather than people who came up with interesting insights.

That said, I think literature is difficult to teach. Coercing any but a small few to even read the book was difficult in my school. And I think that comes from the lack of enjoyment. I reject the notion that to enjoy a book you have to analyse every aspect of it. I always think the first reading of a book should be for pure enjoyment of the narrative, getting to know the characters, learning to inhabit their universe. I think the great majority of authors write their books for enjoyment, not to torture students in looking for meanings that are not always there.

Then again, I suppose other people have different concepts of what literature is than I do.

[donegalfella]

Originally Posted by Dades

Drawing comparisons between 'holiday reading' and Joyce is kind of pointless here. The OP was to do with books/poems that appear on the Irish curriculum which, in the view of some of us, were over-scrutinised to the point of ridiculousness - and also of removing any joy out of the actual reading of them.

I believe that when someone takes English literature in school, as an academic subject, it's important to master the tools of literary analysis and to learn to apply them in a rigorous, systematic way. Instead, we have people coming out in favour of the idea that analyzing literary texts kills the "joy" they would otherwise take in reading them. Would they similarly argue that doing music for the LC should involve istening to CDs and saying, "Wow, man, that's really cool"?

In reality, reading, especially the reading of serious literary texts, is in a precipitous decline across the Western world. Today's teenagers spend hours of their daily leisure time watching TV, playing video games, and surfing the Internet but only a few minutes a week, on average, reading anything for pleasure. Many teenagers are functionally illiterate when it comes to serious literary texts—they simply don't have the comprehension skills. So the notion that teenagers would be joyously reading Shakespeare and Keats if only teachers would stop shoving the precepts of literary analysis down their throats is simply false.

For someone so vigorously defending the honour of analyzing literature, I would have hoped you might have given what I posted more than a cursory glance. That way you could have avoided misrepresenting my single-layered opinion.

Well, I was being deliberately facetious—I do understand that you are calling for some kind of middle ground. But what would that consist of?