Are his dates not later than Shakespeare ? If I am wrong with where they fit in the timeline I apologise.
Mrs Malaprop was a Sheridan character, from his play The Rivals, and Malapropisms are named after her. The things themselves probably go back as far as linguistic humour does.
yes I know that is where the character comes from. I used a small m because of it. Shakespeare is the oldest written down I am aware of there may be earlier.
I kinda disagree with your argument here. It's possible that she doesn't like old fiction. I HATE Jane Austin. Her writing does nothing for me but put me to sleep. I couldn't even read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies because it still had too much of Austin's work in it. Yes, to understand the context of old literature you have to learn 'how to read' the culture that produced it. Yes the English language has changed heavily and therefore old texts are harder to follow. But don't think that a person disliking a genre comes from a lack of skills or education.
There is a difference between not liking it and struggling to read it. I can't stand Thomas Hardy but I can read it without any difficulty beyond noting he is overwordy and a miserable git. Finding it difficult is a lack of education - disliking it is different. You may not like Mills and Boons but it isn't difficult to read etc
it's just so hard to read I initially had difficultly reading the works assigned to us. Now, I've written papers on them. I could read them again if I wanted to. I don't want to. However, that's not the main point. The main point is, why force everyone to read fairy tales? The arguments have been because (1) of its historical value, (2) they teach us who we are, and (3) they teach us to write well, not just grammatically correct. My counterclaim is, you don't need to read make-believe stuff in order to get that. In fact, reading history helps more in understand the works then reading the works to understand history. Example: Reading about ancient psychology helps a person more in understanding the word "choleric" then reading fiction. The works don't lay out the psychology behind the four humors. Really learning who you are means understanding the biases you have. That means living in other culture and reading books the oppose your beliefs. As far as becoming a better writer, again, fiction isn't needed I think. However, on this one point, I'm not so sure. If someone could make a compelling case, I'd probably be swayed. However, there are so many excellent lines outside of fiction, here are a few: "Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm. - Winston Churchill" pg. 3 from Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing US "St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great, who asked him 'how he dares molest the sea.' 'How dare you molest the whole world?' the pirate replied: 'Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy, are called an Emperor.'" pg vii from Pirates and Emperors, Old and New. My favorite pieces tend to be from The Dolphin Reader. They're mostly personally stories, but they're incredibly emotive. It's amazing how they can take control of the reader. Liking something is a a personal preference. If there is indispensable value in reading fiction written hundreds of years ago, then of course, let's force all our high school and college children to read it. If not, then let the classes be optional. If someone wants to read that stuff, knock yourself out. Let the rest of us learn to write some other way.
some more stuff I think it would be best now to talk about what exactly is so difficult about this literature. "Fire on your match" Act 3, Scene 2, line 256 Every Man in His Humor An uneducated person may not understand, or misunderstand what's being said. "Fire on" means "to hell with." The person is saying "To hell with your match." How does learning that make me a much better writer? The only thing I learned was a different way in which English was spoken. Not once was a complicated idea communicated. In my cell bio book, which is still a low level class, electrochemical equilibrium of cytosol ions were explained. While it's not a complicated topic, it's also not a topic that can be explained in a second. To explain that concept within half a page and not be boring takes a gifted writer. It's complicated ideas that I'd like to elucidate. Learning how English was spoken some centuries ago doesn't help me in that. I can read them better now. You're confusing initial difficultly with not being able to eventually understand something. The point was this, why go through the initial difficult of reading old fiction? First off, I don't want to write something that's difficult to read. Considering that's the case, why would I want to write in a manner that makes it difficult for people to digest it? Secondly, are you claiming that the only way to gain writing skills is to read old fiction? If old fiction isn't read, then the writing, while it may be grammatically correct, would inevitably be dry?
Education is more than just "how to" training. Communicating effectively means being able to communicate on a number of different levels, and that in turn requires a deeper level of human understanding. Someone whose education is limited to learning "how to" (fill in the blank) will be missing an awful lot. Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in and walling out.
The fact that you call them "fairy tales" suggests that you have a problem with fiction in general. In The Science of Discworld, Terry Pratchett and Jack Cohen suggest that humans should not be Homo sapiens but should rather be Pan narrans, the story-telling ape. Story telling seems to be an essential part of what it is to be human, and is a key to human socialisation. What we get from stories that we don't get from histories is the internal reasons people act the way we do. We could perhaps get that from psychology texts, but it would be pretty indigestible in that form and we still wouldn't get the practice in rehearsing scenarios. Now, there are some people who don't rehearse stories about how people respond in different situations, those we call autistic. They can be extraordinarily highly functioning in other areas, but they have major problems with socialisation. One of the features that drives the selection of fiction for the literary canon is that it shows a deep understanding of human nature. The study of this literature is, therefore, training in the conduct of that internal monologue, the story-telling of how people would respond to what we might say and do. Not to provide that training would be engender an autistic society.
Fiction =/= fairy tail. A fictional work is simply a work that is not based on actual events. It could be Snow White, The Iliad, or Lonesome Dove. When a teacher assigns a fictional piece of literature, they are not arbitrarily (in most cases) picking fantastical pieces about totally unrealistic worlds. Also keep in mind that the novel, as we know it today, is a literary form of considerable length which arose in England in the 18th century. Works that predate that vintage are not 'novels' and should not be read/interpreted in the same way as contemporary lit. But semantics aside, let me make a case for the study of ancient fictional literature. Take the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. This poem was originally sung during religious celebrations of the goddess Demeter (she was a mother goddess, who was ancient and very well respected in ancient Greek society). It can be argued to have value on several levels: 1) It is a historical document. It tells us what our ancestors did in their lives, how they worshiped, how they viewed their deities, etc. 2) It has cultural value to the people who created it. 3) It served as entertainment. 4) It provides an entomology for seasonal changes, why seeds were buried in pots between growing/harvesting seasons, the death/rebirth of the world (tied to seasons). Of these, #4 is likely the most significant reason (in my opinion), because it suggests to me that man has always turned to story telling to explain the unknown. To an anthropologist, however, #1 or 2 may be more important. Classics majors can get #1,2, and 4 from other sources and may just enjoy reading it for its own merits. Lit majors may add other reasons to the list; things like its poetic form or meter. This is what I mean when I say I feel that you have never had a good instructor who explained the context of the works they presented you with. Without a context this hymn is a fairy tail with no value beyond entertainment (which it honestly lacks by today's standards). This comment is not really fair. Fictional works (and mythological works) WERE history in ancient times. These were stories that told, to their audiences, the actual deeds of the gods/heroes of the day. Just as many today still believe that the Bible (or other religious texts) tell the actual events of their prophet's life. Today fiction and history both tell different sides of the same cultural coin. History gives an account of what happened (but is flawed by human bias) where as fiction tells how the society that produced it feels. Take the cold war and James Bond. The events of the cold war (history) really happened. James Bond was a romantic creation of a culture living in the reality of a war that was fought behind closed doors. Neither one alone would give the full picture of what was going on in the 1950's-1980's western world. This is not fair either. The works do not lay out the psychology behind the four humors because it was common knowledge in that day. In modern works we do not explain that a person has contracted rhinovirus from contact with an infected person, we just say they caught a cold. The four humors were 'discovered' through observation and the extremely limited scientific knowledge of the day. They are themselves an example of how society creates entomologies to explain the unknown, which is what fiction is.
My experience is an academic that does not read fiction, does not concerntrate on learning the languages of the past and the nuances, is generally not as able to impart their information in a completely understandable nature and their teaching ability stinks. Those that do read it tell a much better story.
First off, I'm not saying that works of fiction have no value, or even that they have little value. I just don't see how it has indispensable value. (1) During the times of the Romans, there were actual historians that wrote down contemporary history. (2) The point was, fiction is not indispensable for a science undergrad to learn history. The whole point of this thread is: what's so special about literature that it must be forced on every highschool and college student? (I think I was forced to read fiction in grade school also.) I'm not saying works of fiction are there to systematically teach us about their views on psychology. What I was stating was that reading about the four humors taught me about the four humors. The works, which included novels, didn't add much to my understanding. I can understand a lot of people here enjoy fiction. I enjoy multivariable calculus. Does that mean everyone must take multivariable calculus? Of course not! Even though it is wonderful, and opens up a whole new world of understanding, it isn't for everyone. Literature, I feel, isn't for everyone. If I never picked up a single fiction book, I wouldn't feel any loss. With that said, there are certain works of fiction I do enjoy. It's not that I hate all of it. I love Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder. That book takes 3,000 years worth of philosophical thought and wraps it into a story. I just hate everything I had to read for school. lol. Serious though, do you really believe that society will be damaged if they don't read all the dick jokes (phallus) of Elizabethan era?
I have my own answers, which I know for a fact people will not like. I cannot stand Shakespeare. The language, is horrible, everything about his works, I find pathetically bad. I'd prefer Stephanie Meyer over him to be quite honest, now isnt that saying something? In fact, even as a 20year old male, I don't find her writing as horrible as most. I think people put her writing down just because there is just a hype surrounding Twilight, although I do believe the host to be MUCH better. In no way do I mean to dis classic literature in general, just Shakespeare LordKyleofearth said: "In studying fiction from the past and current times you learn who you are, where you came from, and what it is that makes us human." I'm sorry, I respect your opinion, but I just cannot agree. I know who I am, reading a book will tell me nothing of the sort. I know exactly where I came from, I know what makes me human, well to a certain degree anyway. I don't know what exactly you meant by that post, but to me, novels are what they are. Stories, and that is all. I know I'll get flamed for this
Correct. However, it is indispensable to becoming a normally-functioning human. Fiction is part of what it is to be human. Multivariate calculus (fun though it can be) isn't -- although the logical reasoning that lies behind it is. If you like, multivariate calculus is to math what Beowulf (in the original form) is to English literature. Everybody who is capable of it needs some math and some literature, but the trickier stuff is best left to those who want to explore deeper. Serious[ly] though, has anybody suggested that it would be?
What's your evidence for this? Again, we're speaking of forced fiction via the school system. People, of course, will get their dose of fiction from television, internet, and/or books they like.
Actually, not everybody will -- there are those who reject all forms of fiction as "fairy tales". But even the majority who do read/watch fiction from choice will tend to select material that matches well with their own world view, so it can actually have a narrowing effect. Kids do need to be brought into contact with conflicting worldviews, and fiction is almost certainly the most effective way of doing that.
If you're a writer and you never read things from previous famous writers ... it's like a scientist ignoring other people's theories because they are dead and they don't matter any more. Reading other works is helpful in understanding how to show different aspects and give you a greater understanding of what writing is. Never reading works from previous alive persons...even if one is not a writer...is like someone never leaving their house. Your appreciation for things is less by limiting yourself.
It comes with age. Meaning...if you read him when you're thirty you will like him. I'm pretty sure. Not saying that you'll love him. But you'll appreciate more. People with not a lot of life don't get what's going on with Shakespeare. Not a problem in not getting it or liking it, but just like wine, people can become more aged with 'getting it'. As for Stephanie Meyer I think people that don't see how bad she is with her story telling have not read really good writing like Catch-22 or things like Michael Crichton...stuff that has actual oomph and not lackluster emotional dander. I promise you my dislike for her has more to do with not being able to get past the first sentence than any hype. wait until you're thirty. Maybe even 25. No flaming from me. Because I didn't want to and because it's not really important that you like Shakespeare at all. Most young people don't.
The very first question was: What is your evidence that fiction "is indispensable to becoming a normally-functioning human."
It's not actually evidence. but if you read Pratchett and Cohen's "The Science of Discworld" series, you might understand better where I'm coming from -- and how important narrative structure is to science, which is not as clinical as some of its proponents like to think.
I hate to butt into your debate here, but after reviewing the topic, I felt the need to drop in my two cents. First off, let me clarify something. English literature is not "indispensable to becoming a normally functioning human-being." But, if you're talking indispensable, then nothing is inherently indispensable. Let me save you the trouble of looking up that word in the dictionary: "absolutely necessary, essential, or requisite." Also, if you don't mind me asking, what do you consider normally functioning? I will argue this, before hearing your answer. If you want to know why reading literature is important, then ask why integral calculus is important. As a future English major, I'm not going to need to know Calculus. In fact, once I'm done with learning basic math skills, what's the use of learning any more math? Or science, for that matter? I care not of molecular biology, chemistry or physics. They're just laws governing the universe, after all. It's because it widens your horizons. Makes you think in different ways. Allows your experiences to grow. You deflate Shakespeare to phallic jokes, which is kind of disheartening to me. That'd be if I said something along the lines of "Pythagoras was an old mystic who, because he was a radical and completely ridiculous cultist, could not have possibly added anything to the fields of math, science or philosophy." It's ad hominem. And it's a potential logical fallacy waiting to happen. I'm not saying Shakespeare isn't overly glorified or that his work isn't overanalyzed, but I do think that there are certain works of literature that every human being should experience. Hamlet is one of them. It's one of two by Shakespeare that I personally think rank among the greatest pieces ever written. So what? What am I saying? I'm saying your argument is valid and sound on the grounds that you agree with the fact that *nothing* is indispensable for individual humans to learn.
This is pretty much what I've been thinking as I followed this thread. You ask what the point of reading fiction in high school is, but along those same lines, what's the point of studying science? What's the point of taking math? Why should we be required to take government or economics? It's not like English is the only class that people don't need to study...
I used the term "normally functioning" because those with certain autistic spectrum disorders do have a genuine mental problem with literature, and although they can function pretty well in society they have to use coping strategies. I should say that it's literature I consider essential, not necessarily English literature. Over a billion Chinese get by just fine without English literature. But I would consider the literature taught in schools to be on the level of basic math skills. The "calculus" of literature would be deconstruction or capital-T Theory. Not me! Definitely not me! Would the other one be Lear? If so then I agree (at least as far as the English language goes). Nothing is indispensable for humans to learn, I agree -- but if some things are not learned, like 1+1=2, then the person is going to struggle to fit in with society.
