Am I the only one who's school offered choices in reading material? There were certain books we were forced to read (we read Romeo and Juliet and To Kill a Mockingbird and The Old Man and the Sea and stuff like that), but every year we had 2 or 3 books we got to choose on our own out of the library, or brought from home, if we so desired. That always seemed like a good system.
Fine... I apologize for reducing Shakespeare to phallic jokes. Of course it is more than that. However, it wasn't an ad hominem attack. Integral Calculus is amazing. Why should an English major learn it? I'd say, it's not necessary. A lot of people don't take it. Highschools and Colleges don't force people to learn anything beyond basic math. Just as they don't force the populous to learn anything beyond basic math, they shouldn't force people to learn fiction. Then the question that was raised is: how is taking English different than taking another class. From the required core classes, taking social sciences are important. I've taken English, Philosophy, Economics, and Psychology. Economics offers a new way of thinking. An Economist is sometimes called a scoundrel who sees things as they are. Philosophy really does challenge the way you think. Psychology teaches you that what you perceive as human behavior may be wrong. For voting citizens, those types of classes are important. There is a major difference between fiction and science. With science, a lot of data must be collected and analyzed to arrive at certain conclusions. It's not simply a story told by someone. Do you really believe that the lessons that are learned from economics are on par with reading Romeo and Juliet? Looking at another class, in calculus you learn that you can add an infinite amount of numbers that can add up to 4. Before calculus, I thought, if you add an infinite amount of numbers of course the sum would be infinity. But that's not the case! You can't possibly compare that with reading The Man of Mode! Even then, everyone doesn't have to learn calculus, even though it's such an eye opener. There is a difference between English and the sciences. The latter is supported by data. An example would illustrate my point: 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy; Thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot, Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part Belonging to a man. O, be some other name! What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd, Retain that dear perfection which he owes Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name, And for that name which is no part of thee Take all myself. How do we know that sounds have no effect on perceived smells? Placebo effects, in and of themselves, cause positive effects. How do we know that pleasant sounds don't have a placebo effect on smells? Perhaps a rose wouldn't smell as sweet if it was called by any other name! You have a guy, supported by the royal family, writing sanctioned plays. How is spending time analyzing parts of his play on par with understanding how an economy works? What's more important to a voting citizen? When hearing people debate over economic policies, taking 6 credit hours of economics helps. It helps one decide which official to vote for. Philosophy does challenge one's morals and views. When looking at other cultures and their laws, how do we judge it to be immoral? How do we judge our own laws based on morality/immortality? Psychology does help with understanding human behavior. A systematic scientific study of how things work is qualitatively different then reading lauded works of the past. My time would have been well spent in highschool if I had teachers with grammar fetishes teaching me to write well over spending time reading Catcher and the Rye. One of the things I was struck by in my writing class was that we spent a lot of type writing and analyzing ways to write. We read the dolphin reader to see how people write. Content wasn't important. I had to go to English class for about an hour a day, five days a week, for three years. It would have been much more fruitful had they spent that time teaching us grammar well and writing styles. Of course it wasn't devoid of grammar and writing, but it wasn't devoted to it. If instead of reading fiction, English classes were more focused on writing well, then I could see the benefit of making it mandatory for everyone. It really would then be indispensable. The other classes are indispensable as in a lack of it would impede a voting citizen from making an informed choice.
My school let us choose books also. In addition to this, not every English class I took in high school was a literature class. There were classes that did deal mainly with grammar, punctuation, etc.
Reading and analyzing literature helps develop thinking and language skills. Since a lot of literature is based on interpretation, you become exposed to the ideas of others and are forced to think deeply about a specific issue or interpretation raised by the book. Also, reading gives you exposure to different types of people and places that you ordinarily wouldn't come across. It presents problems and challenges that you normally wouldn't think about. I tend to think of literature as a cultural exchange where there's an opportunity to learn something new. By the way, are you in college? I ask this because if you are, then you should take a college literature class (most colleges have a wide selection of English classes). You may have just had bad experiences before, and I'm sure if you picked the right class you'll enjoy it and get something out of it.
No activity here for days, then I take a day off and BOOOM! everyone has on opinion I sort of feel that I need to break this into segments to fit everyone in. Paki, you are first: Primary and secondary schooling have two different reasons (I believe) for including literature. Primary schools (like highschool) have to present a full swath of options to a student. How would you have known that you loved math if you had never been exposed to it as a child? Secondary schools (like colleges) include classes from all disciplines to create more 'rounded' scholars. Not all do this however. Trade schools only focus on teaching what needs to be taught; not much literary analysis happens at Hallmark institute or ITT Tech. Reading a definition (like at WIkipedia for example) tells you WHAT they are. Reading about them in literature shows how they existed in society. It gives a different angle on understanding. But would Jostein Gaarder have written Sophie's World without having studied classic literature? It's highly doubtful. That would be a communication class rather than a literature class (both are often combined). Yes grammar is an important part of English but there were no formal rules regarding it for centuries. Many were 'invented' by nobles in rather haphazard ways. For example: Double negatives, although common in other languages, they are incorrect in English. This is because a noble in England (who happened to be a mathematician) decided that two negatives cancel out, so they should be improper in English. He published a book stating such and it became cannon. --- Unfortunately the education system has some large problems plaguing it. The largest is that school curriculums are composed by politicians who set regulation and requirements of what must be taught. These politicians are not teachers and don't fully understand (or think through) what they are assigning. Schools (and to a lesser extent, teachers) have some wiggle-room but not much. The other problem is that people make the mistake of thinking that English is easy to teach. Did you ever ask why a given grammar rule existed? I bet the teacher gave a sub-satisfactory answer. Likely because they flat out didn't know why the rule existed. Similarly they likely couldn't explain to you why a given story was important (hence this thread). This also happens when kids ask math teachers why they need to learn long-division, or algebra, or calculus (the default answer to me was usually "because you need it in college"). --- In the end, the answer to your question is obviously a complex one. I changed majors after failing to wrap my mind around differential equations. I managed my way through Cal III, but couldn't handle the intangibility of the multi-variable stuff. Having been on both sides of the fence, Math kids generally don't 'get' literature kids and visa-versa. I think our brains are differently wired (left brain / right brain stuff). That said, I think individuals are fine skipping huge chunks of Human Knowledge, but a society is not.
Also.... KrisG: Literature (like I said, Novels are a new form) won't say who you are directly (unless it's some sort of biography) but it does comment on who we are as a society. A close reading of the Aeneid shows how a people want to come from heroic roots. Read closely, and with the full context surrounding it, It's literally one guy, commissioned by the Emperor of Rome, rewriting history to make the Roman people cooler. That says more about humanity than fifty years of official statistics ever could. The flip side of it is when you examine the author along with the works. Dave Matthews and George Carlin's works (musical and comedic) both show their struggle with their faith after loosing loved ones. My short story 12 stories from Heaven shows insight into the guilt I felt after the death of a close friend. Often times these are not intended, but rather the results of the events that shaped the author's subconscious mind. So in closing, no. Literature does tell you why you are human. It does tell you who you are. Novels are much more than just stories that have been whimsically collected. And to Digitig: As I said above, nothing beyond human instinct is needed for survival or existence. Humans lived for thousands of years before civilizations arose. But all aspects of Human Knowledge are requisite for the progress and growth of society. From literature, to math, to painting, and porn. All of it is who we are and where we are going.
Why as a scientist should you bother with literature? I guess that you think science proceeds in a slightly different manner than the way I think science proceeds. Perhaps your philosophy classes touched on Hume and Popper and Kuhn and Feyerabend? If not I would recommend you take a look. It strikes me that folk like Dawkins, God bless him, never have. Having thought about what those chaps says you might begin to appreciate why literature may prove pretty helpful in your chosen career.
Might be worth studying the pioneer scientists of the nineteenth century - all were well read in every subject not just science or maths. Most had a strong religious background which naturally gives someone a background in story. That is guaranteed anymore.
