Or perhaps we should instead broaden our definition of classics to include more non-European writings.
Those things do not determine what you will like to read or how well you do in school. I've seen too many people who contradict those stereotypes about poor people, or those who live around gang activity to believe those hold people back or tell you want they will like. Take it from some one who lives in the most diverse city in the world, and has gone to school with the rich kids and with the gang members, and the response to these things are individual. The rich kids hate Shakespeare just as much as the poor kids, and every ten-year-old boy would rather watch a modern action movie than read King Lear. There are kids who won't benefit from those books, but it is not determined by social class. BTW, learning disabilities also have nothing to do with social class. In fact, there are privately run schools, where people have to pay tuition, for children with learning problems, so obviously people with money have learning problems, too. Having money also does not mean you will benefit from classics, or have an easy time in school.
Getting way back to the original question as to whether high schools should teach the classics or let the students pick their own books...I have to reflect back to what I learned in school. I read the classics, but also read modern books. I read books written in England, in the United states, by white writers and black writers. My school was very well-rounded. It offered English electives in different genre's including Science Fiction, Asian American Lit...etc. Even in summer we had to read something from a given list that included books from the last century and different decades of the current century. We chose a book and wrote an essay as our first assignment when when the school year started up again. I think this is as much free choice as students should be given. Otherwise, we would have students trying to pass Twilight off as literature. I think it is important to teach what makes good writing, not just an entertaining story. Students need a foundation in the classics and then transition into the modern so they have a basis of comparison.
I've just read this, one friend of mine wrote me: "Concerning Greek, well, I now have something to do when I’m bored in class… Practice Greek! The same way I learned Japanese in high school. Back then, I would write the lyrics of Japanese songs in my books to practice katakana and hiragana. And I greatly improved. (I also owe it to my overexposure to anime haha.)" For some reason, this reminded me of this thread ... Oh, I remember the days of school, when I COULD be in class, and draw, and write a lot! ... It's wonderful to have nonsense classes ... Even if you have to study like a crazy .. kid, in the examinations weeks, to catch up with all you've lost , because during those times, we could use our time however we wished! Well ...~
The only problem I have with classics is that somehow the education system uses them to enforce the government's political views: 'Explore how Macbeth reinforces the role of women in society' (what? that makes no sense; the play is fantasy) 'Do you think that what happened to Oliver when he was left without food or water and was abused by the workhouse owners was right?' (I wrote 'yes' as my answer here - it's that or submit to their wishes ) 'Indian words are used to promote racial harmony' (no, they're used because the character is Indian)
That's awesome! So far I've managed to avoid that level of retardation in my education, thank goodness. You should go to tvtropes.org and look up "Everyone is Jesus in Purgatory."
Personally I can't stand a lot of the classics that they select for 'school'. I don't like shakespheare, I couldn't connect with Jane Eyre, and so on. But there were classics that I read on my own like The Garden Party and some other books I can't think of off the top of my head. I don't believe that just because someone makes something a classic...makes it a classic. And believe that you can learn just as much from something written today as you can from something written in the past. So this question: Should middle and high school students continue to be forced to read "the classics" or should they be allowed to read more modern works of their choosing? No. They shouldn't. They should be have the choices to read whatever they want. (I'm all for the John Holt of learning). They should be given selections, choices, and told what they are, but forcing anyone to do anything is not in my mind appropriate . Besides most kids who are forced to read those things or any novel for class don't really read them, never really get it, and don't have a real appreciation for it. The teachers generally ask silly questions like what colour was her skirt, and what does green symbolize assuming the author sat down and wrote every single little piece of symbolism/detail purposely. We make interpretations usually considered wrong by horrid teachers, and with the invention of some things like Sparknotes there are many kids who've gotten through entire courses without ever really understanding or reading the actual book. (Though there are a few people who enjoy them.) If you force someone to do something there will be no appreciation, there will be no love for the book.
Why? In the Irish education system, teachers are the ones who draw up the list of texts to be studied, though they are arguably influenced by what constitutes the 'canon' of classic literature...there are various reasons for why the 'canon' of classics exists. Fame often gets precedence over quality. To be sure, there are greater writers than Shakespeare or Dickens out there...but the canon is not to be understimated. Practically everything in it is exemplary to the finest detail. But the point of english is to read and cultivate an appreciation for good writing. Modernism should not be a pre-requsite...besides, many of the classics are thematically universal... Because they are brilliant writers, worthy of study. There's also a LOT of information on these writers available, making them very student-friendly... I don't agree with you that the classics are boring. In our school, we studied more modern texts, such as 'To Kill A Mockingbird' and an Irish novel, 'How Many Miles to Babylon'. Mockingbird has attained the status of a 'classic' and the language is neither complicated nor boring. Also, mordern work doesn't have any more value than older work, just because they differ in styles...surely the works should be judged on an individual basis, and not on these time-based prejudices?
From the point of view of the teacher, this method is difficult to teach. If every student was given a choice about what book to read, the teacher would have a hard time teaching those texts. In high school, we had to choose from 4 different books. We then split up into 4 groups and discussed the book among ourselves. After a while, the conversation kind of died, and a lot of what was being said added nothing to the conversation at all. I would prefer to have a common book with a teacher-led discussion. IMO, it's better for the teacher as well as the students. Symbolism is an important part of understanding the text. From the point of view of writing, it's good to study symbolism so that you will know how to incorporate it into your own writing. And yes, the writers do purposely utilize symbolism. It's not there by accident. Also, sometimes students make bogus interpretations and try to backup their claim with insufficient or bad evidence from the text. They try to look for things that aren't there. In that case, I would argue that their interpretation is, in fact, wrong and that it's the teacher's duty to point this out.
Thirdwind I once had an English teacher who allowed us all to choose the books we wanted to read from a preselected list (which were a great wide variety of books she had read) some were modern some were classics, a lot of them had won some sort of award. She said if we really wanted to we could opt to read another book outside of that but she would have to look into it. I think that a good English teacher is well read, and knows more than just the classic and that even giving kids an option within that predefined list would be something. Also most english classes are themed, a lot of times it's not about reading classics they just want you to know 'American Authors' 'British Authors' 'World Authors' etc. Symbolism may be important but I doubt that all these great writers sat down turning everything into a symbol to be analyzed. I want to be able to read a book and to enjoy it not analyze it and break it into parts like a psychologist or a detective. (personally for me personally) I just think it's reached a point where it's ridiculous...why is her hair orange and not black, why did she wear heels instead of sneakers, why is her nails pink and her friends nails red. Why... like the author seriously sat down and gave her all these qualities to make her a symbolism of the Off bug spray... But that's just my opinion. Besides the only one in my mind who can correctly make an interpretation of what the novel meant is the actual author, everything is by everyone else just that an interpretation.
It really doesn't matter at all what the writer intended. If you study literary theory at some point in your latereducation, you may discover that the author died in the 70's. The author is better thought of (in contemporary thought) as a function of the text, not as its authority. Therefore, critical response to the imagery in a text becomes vastly more important than what the author intended. Obviously psycholanalysis has a lot to do with that kind of thought too, finding meaning in the author's unconscious choices and creations. The author is not equipped at all to act as the final authority over the text. Other theorists argue that the text cannot be defined as a single text and is instead interconnected with every other text in existence, and these connections must be explored (they refer to this as intertextuality, Derrida was quite central to it if you're interested). But basically, as far as the study of literature goes, the author has never been important. From the early 20th century, when the study of literature developed (yes, it is that recent) it was and always has been about interpreting the texts as texts, not as seeing them as windows into an author's soul, and readers are as much an authority on the textas the author themselves. I know when you start your study of literature it seems intuitive to simply "ask the author" but really, if you think about it, there's no reason at all to do that since there's nothing the author could do but interpret the text one other way. Copyright law may assert that the author owns the text, but literary theory will tell you that's simply not true. Furthermore, and more to the original question, as I have said, several times now, the study of literature is not simply "reading class". Its a discipline in the same way that science and maths are disciplines. You can't say to your science teacher "oh, I don't wanna learn about plant reproduction", so I don't understad why anyone would think its okay to say to an English teacher "oh, I don't want to study Shakespeare". Sit down, shut up and learn what you're told, student. Have faith that people who know a lot more than you do are doing the right thing for you. The classics are canonised for a reason, and this canon is taught for a reason. It is a huge part of your cultural identity to study your national literature. Its not about having fun or reading books you enjoy, its about reading important books, books that have meaning for you (even if, for some reason, you don't appreciate it). If you just wanna read fun books, drop out of school and get a job in a library or something. You study literature to learn, not to have a fun time reading.
-smirks- I don't believe in sitting down, shutting up, and doing what I'm told. I believe in asking questions, exploring my possibilities, and branching out. I have no faith or trust in most people and what they tell me because there's always someone out there who claims to know more than someone else and most of those same people can't seem to agree with the other. I still can't stand Shakespheare which is funny because I was reading 'classics' since before I entered any type of school, once I entered they took the enjoyment and beauty right out of it. I understood what they were about and what they meant, I was taught those things early on, but there's something about school that wipes you dry. I also think learning and fun go hand in hand, learning, curiosity, and fun. It is a firm belief of mine and it certainly was something that got me A's in all my classes, into AP classes, and earned me scholarships...It's also something that has created in my brother a new love for reading and literature which he never had before. I don't think that just because people don't agree with Shakespheare/other classics and sitting down and being obedient little students, that that automatically means they're not willing to learn, don't care for literature and so on. Maybe it's not their style, there are other writers that aren't 'classics' that are just as good and appealing and can both entice and be learned from. I also think that it IS all about the author. I would hate to write a story about my life and then have someone tell me it's not about me...when it was written about my childhood and my life and things I went through. Readers just twist it for themselves making it into what they want to make it into...but it still doesn't make it theirs. (Which is just my belief on the matter) Anyway...I think you had a lot of great points some I disagreed with some I didn't, either way....yeahhhhhh
As I mentioned earlier, overanalyzing is bad, and yes, sometimes it does get ridiculous. But at that point, it's the reader's fault, not the author's. How the text is analyzed depends on the reader. I do admit that teachers tend to overanalyze at times, although this is more common in high school than in college. Arron brings up a good point when he talks about math and science. Most students wouldn't go into a math class and say, "I want to learn this but not that." It's sort of the same with literature. I think most teachers know that most students are more likely to read contemporary books than classics which is probably why schools teach only classics. Outside of the classroom, students are less likely to encounter them. Also, some books have more potential for analysis and discussion than do others. arron, while I do value different interpretations on the text, I believe the author is the final authority on whatever he or she wrote. This is why I take criticism with a grain of salt. If an author tells us that his goal in writing the book was X but a critic disagrees and claims it was Y, I am more likely to trust the author (I think we had a similar conversation for Nabokov's Lolita when we read that last month). For me, the author's intention trumps all. I also disagree that the reader is as much an authority on the text as the author. But I guess it all boils down to personal views. I know that there are many different theories for how to read and interpret literature. This is merely my input.
This is really fascinating, and I've heard this argument before. Still, I can't quite figure out where things separate themselves, nor (more importantly) why they should. Maybe just as a matter of convenience in order to give a student a better foundation for being able to identify his own cultural “fit” in the world. I do believe there is way more to a text (any text) than what the author intended. It's almost as if the author, in writing a story, learns--or maybe seeks to learn--as much about himself as the story gains from what he actually knows, desires, fears, experiences, etc. And I detest those little blurbs or interviews where the author is asked to explain various things as if he's the final authority on his own work. I'm sure that's not so (at least not for the best writers of the greatest books). But here's where I fall short of understanding this. While an exceptional writer can certainly pen a great work and (can later or earlier offer) a work that's less than good (Steinbeck, e.g.). Still, there seems to be a unifying thread that uniquely ties one author's work into a bundle. Now, I realize we're only speaking of the cream of the crop (but those are the folks studied in literature courses and IMO the ones who should be). But (or So), I can't help but think beyond just the text (as you describe it above) and into something else that exists behind that pen from which a particular text flowed in some way. I think of it as the author's particular way of struggling with his particular demons and desires and mysteries and comforts that prompts him to write particular stories that seem (to me) to result in particular style that simply cannot reflect anyone else but himself, except in the collaborative sense that all great literature is only so once it becomes a mixture of author and reader. I haven't studied literature, myself in a formal way, though I wish that I had or could have (hindsight and all that, you know). But I don't think I can quite accept the idea that the author's text and intentions are entirely separate matters, and that therefore, somehow, it is only the text itself that's worth discussing, or which catapults a given writer into greatness. I think it's at least as important to imagine something called a soul (or even call it an "illusion," if you prefer); but there is some kind of particular glue that binds a given set of texts to a singular writer. I'm sure I’d find it very hard to overlook that, even in a great literature class. In fact, in the few literature classes I endured as a high school and college student, I think now it was that very enthusiasm for making a connection to the person behind the work that was missing from my own education.
Arron, yes we study to learn, but what is so wrong with enjoying the process? I had tons of fun doing Taming of the Shrew at school. No reason anyone else shouldn't. And yes, the older books/plays that have been remembered have value for all the reasons you've given, but just because its not old doesn't mean its not worth studying as well. To use your science class analogy, could a science teacher claim he shouldn't teach a theory in school just because it is a new discovery or from recent research?
^ I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy it; I enjoyed every minute of my studyof English. All I'm saying is, if it doesn't happen to be to your taste with regards to what you're reading, the appropriate response isn't to start blaming the system and the teachers for ruining English for you, the appropriate response is to realise that yu are in a group environment, the world does not revolve around you, and if other people are not having the same problems then you should either leave the class or learn to deal with it. As for the 'old' thing, the way I use classic doesn't necessarily imply age, it only implies canonisation. At school I studied texts from as recent as the 1980's, and these books are considered 'modern' classics, but classics all the same. As for the science analogy, yes, I think it is wrong to teach new theories in the classroom until research has proven them to be absolute and valid, just as English teachers should only teach texts which have been authorised as valid and worthy of study. High school is not a place to be teaching kids the avant-garde and the experimental, its a place to cover the basics. If they're interested in furthering their studies, there are more than enough universities to cater to their neers. And Molly! While I agree that there is something unifying the texts of a given author, I guess I would hesitate to call it a 'soul'...a stylistic unity might be expected, and I suppose that this (especially with your Steinbeck example) could be analysed, but I guess the argument from critics would be: what does it add to our understanding of the text? It's certainly an interesting thing, to compare the biographies of an author with the thiongs that they wrote and see how one influences the other, but really, as readers, I'm uncertain as to how much we actually gain from that kind of reading. Michel Foucault abhorred the idea of his work being collected together in any form, under any name, as both his style, his ideas and his way of thinking changed drastically over the course of his long career, so while it is convenient for us as readers to collect the work of an author and impose patterns (evolutions, shifts in style, parallels with biograhy) this is often not conducive to bettering our understanding of the text.
Just because it's new doesn't mean its not evidence-based or not worth knowing about. Kids should know what research is going on right now or else how can they keep up once they are out of school? And there is no reason why, just because its not "canon" doesn't mean it doesn't have value and is not worth studying. There are also books that a particular teacher may know about, but it's not so famous that someone writing curriculum guidelines may think to include it and hasn't had the chance to get the level of recognition to become canon. Besides, writers are expected to know what is being published right now. No reason other people shouldn't learn about what current authors are doing right now, why they are doing it, avant garde or not. There are other reasons to study books anyway, not just learning about symbolism and literary devices and that sort of thing. There is the social aspect as well, learning about what the made the writer write what he did and all that. And have you seen a high school English class lately? By grade eleven and twelve they are way beyond needing to know the basics. My class certainly was. You can also still learn the basics from newer books, too. My grade five students certainly haven't suffered from reading Eric Walters instead of Huck Finn.
The thing is that it's probably a lot easier to teach older texts than newer texts. Older texts have a lot more criticism to work with during discussion. If a classroom was to pick up a book published in 2009, I guarantee you that the discussion wouldn't last very long. The majority of my teachers/professors liked to draw from outside sources when discussing a specific text. Newer books don't have as much criticism or discussion about them which may make it harder to teach.
Ooooo! I never would have thought of that..It makes a lot of sense when put that way! (At least in my head )
Kids have no need to be taught at school things that are only being developed or recently developed in the field of their study - what they need to know are the fundamentals of the field, fundamentals (in both science and in literature) that are varely covered in enough depth by the end of high school and then expaned on at university. I graduated high school a year and a half ago, and went straight into university, and I can confidently say that as advanced as high school literature seems, it barely scratches the surface of what there is to know, something I'm sure is true for virtually any discipline at school. For that reason, I am glad that while I was at school I was given a solid grounding in the basics of studying literature, and even in my final year of high school I don't think anything we were doing could be considered beyond 'the basics', regardless of the difficulty of the texts. As for not allowing newer texts, as I have said too many times to count now, lit class is NOT 'reading' class. It is not about reading anything and learning to analyse it, it is about reading literature, important works, and analysing them. I know you are against this distinction between literature and contemporary ficton, but the fact is a distinction is (and, IMO, absolutely must be) made between Twilight and Tolstoy with regards to what is worth studying.
None of the teachers I've worked with have had a problem with it. And arron, you have to keep in mind that I'm not talking about "literature class." I'm talking about English class, plain and simple. Like it or not, it is about the skills being taught, not what books they are being taught with. I am a teaching assistant, have studies the goals and methods of education, and have worked in four different schools. The skills being taught and learned are no different, no matter what book is being used. And why bring Twilight into this? I'm talking about Margaret Atwood at the high school level, Lois Lowery and Eric Walters (one of Canada's best children's authors currently writing in my opinion) in the higher elementary grades, Jane Yolen and Robert Munsch in the lower elementary grades. As for being beyond the basics, I've seen the kind of work done in university classes, and of course it is more difficult, but it's not the huge gap you're talking about. In fact, I saw very little difference between my grade twelve Drama class and my college level classes.
English classes include teaching literature. I agree that the skills and techniques are more important than what text is used. But some books are better at teaching those skills than others. It is more beneficial to study Shakespeare than Twilight. It may seem like a farfetched comparison, but hopefully it gets my point across. Like I mentioned before, older texts have more criticism and discussion about them, thus making it easier for students to look at many different viewpoints when reading. For more modern texts, criticism and commentary might be limited, and students only get to study two or three viewpoints as opposed to many.
I can't stand Shakespeare. I just really don't like analysing every stupid detail at school. But I do love reading alot of the classics. Most people in my class think they are really boring, but they hardly read anything at all so I suppose they would seeing as they think reading in general is boring. I think at school we should learn about both modern novels and classics, so we can see how writing and language has changed over time ect. My favourite book in the world, Jane Eyre, is a classic. I really like the language back then, but I guess alot of people don't. But then there's classics I hate like a Tale of Two Cities, which I couldn't read beyond a few pages of. I don't really care about the syle of language in any book, I only care what plot it is tbh. At my school we read a mixture of stuff. We've read Noughts and Crosses, Romeo and Juliet, To Kill a Mocking Bird ect. We only analyse (sp?) the classics though. And classics aren't forced on pupils, at least at my school, because only the top 3 English sets study literature, while the rest study media.
I like that idea. It would make an interesting class, looking at the trend in literature throughout the years.
Most english classes do exactly that. At least the Cambrdge ones (like A levels and all that) do. The text list is available to students, too, so if there's something on it you desperately want to study, just ask your teacher (or study it yourself and write on it in the exam, no one would stop you).
