Teaching people to hate literature.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ave Sodalis

Earthhorse wrote: »

OP, is this the article in question?.

Yes thats the one. Thanks


Personally I think the author should tell us whether or not the book or poem has to be deeply analysied to get the full benefit. It is, after all, the author who put in a deeper meaning.

For secondary school, i think we should merely read and go over the basic meaning of the works so the teenagers have a better chance of liking the work, instead of trying to remember every single part of the works and dreading the paper on it at the end. Then they can study it further in third level if wished. This way, you have a higher chance of students going on to do it.

Mark Hamill

Dades wrote: »

@ Mark Hamill - I really like that passage in your sig!

Thanks. Its from a book!

Mark Hamill

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, the logical implication is to stop forcing kids into reading something they have no interest in, in order to try and make them appreciate it.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why is Celia Ahern a waste of time?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, any writers whose work is intricate, challenging, and complex enough not to lend itself to absorption by osmosis but then claims that every reader should want to dissect it anyway is wrong.

donegalfella wrote: »

Maybe so, but would you accept that some of us want something a little bit more intellectually challenging and aesthetically satisfying than Terry Pratchett?

Sure, I'm not trying to claim that some people enjoy labyrinthian tomes as much or more than others enjoy the more "read by numbers" style airport thrillers, but dont come along and say that everyone should enjoy such works. The problem is that in school, you arent given a choice. Everyone is told what to read, how to read it and then made study for preset exams on how they should have read it. Recognise that some people just dont like reading and that many dont like being forced to read something jsut because some toff says its good. If its good, I'll get around to it anyway!

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would have thought that the person arguing on behave of dissecting stories and language would be far more into differentiating what stories are and how they are told. Is that not the whole basis of metaphor analysis?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats because political propaganda is always one dimensional, its all about consoling power. However an individual making up a story in order to hide a deeper meaning is merely an exercise into how elaborate the meaning can be hidden.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But the pleasure is purely subjective, not everyone will get that pleasure. There is nothing with those people, poetry doesn't have to be appreciated by all, much like football doesn't have to be appreciated by all, but the way its taught in schools doesn't acount for this. You are told you should appreciate poetry because its there to be appreciated.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Who then complain when their projects dont end up on best sellers lists by saying people are lazy readers :rolleyes:.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its amazing that in anything else, if you have a simple way to do something and a complicated way, its the simple way that is usually considered best. In literature, writers write as elaborately as possible, so that people will congradulate them on how elaborate they have written it. Its mostly just ego massage, because I dont really think that ones who do write elaborately and figuratively simply because they love to, really care that much about wether kids are forced to read their work in school.

PS: Whats wrong with Pratchett, he's the greatest writer in the world?

Mark Hamill

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I am critising the writers who thinks that any reader who isn't willing to approach their work with a dictionary, thesaurus and college degree is a lazy unintillectual reader. Not everyone appreciates books in that way, and its not something that should be forced on kids in school.

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why do people need to learn literary techniques though? Do you need to learn movie making techniques to really enjoy a film?

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But its a bit of a moot question. Someone is hardly going to jump out on you in the street and say "here's a poem, you have 30 mins to describe all the underlying meanings and metaphors. Go!". Even if you believe that dissection of literature is something that everyone should do, putting it on such a timescale just removes form the experience.

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You think only looking at all the books since 1900s is narrow? Whats so great about Shakespeare anyway? Sure he may be one of the earliest people do deal with the themes that he did, but surely it would be best to let people examine those themes in contexts and time periods they can relate to (at least at first)

Mark Hamill

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If he's so great then why not let kids who like reading come across him anyway? Why should school curriculums be filled with drama, literature and poetry that no one in the class can relate to? Why not start with things that people now can relate to, and then let them work up to him. If he's so good, then he'll still be there.

Mark Hamill

Dades wrote: »

Perhaps there should be a separate optional English Literature subject, in the same way there is an Applied Maths?

Fixed

Ave Sodalis

What about Harry Potter?



One of the greatest book series ever written. Not one of those books are on the curriculum and yet they have been on the bestsellers list since they were first published in 1997. They didnt have to be taken apart to be thoroughly enjoyed by young children and adults alike. Or is this one dimentional literature?

The meaning, and the plot were figured out naturally and not through the education system. Why can this not be the case for books within the education system?

Mark Hamill

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Because the people who set the exams, define it as such, not because of any fundamental connection.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Seriously?

Valmont

Now that I think about it, I was in a fantastic English class for 5th and 6th year. Our teacher really focused on how the books and poems we were analysing were to be enjoyed. The poetry I found woeful although I have learned to appreciate it a lot more in the last few years thanks in no small part to Stephen Fry. I thoroughly enjoyed Hamlet and despite the rote learning we were encouraged to do, I still went out and saw it in the Olympia.

I have since read Macbeth and while I'm sure I missed out on all of the multi-layered metaphors and all that jazz, I still enjoyed it, so don't tell me that I need to sit down with my Leaving cert notes to do it properly. That, quite frankly, is effing ridiculous.

Regarding the books they make you read, holy crap, Amongst Women? Maya Angelou? Reading these two almost reversed my love of reading entirely. I'm not saying they aren't literary masterpieces but they are definitely not the sort of book most 17 year olds want to read. I read Crime and Punishment during my leaving certificate. Why? There was a murder in it and I wanted to read something that was a classic. Compromise.

Valmont

Well one thing for sure, I'm going to be reading for an hour longer tonight!

Mark Hamill

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, buts that because of what you said. Most kids these days dont read much at home-they play video games, watch tv or go onto the internet and they aren't likely to improve their grasp of the English language anywhere there. Unfortunately, when they come to school, instead of being taught more complex uses of grammar, how to examine statements and determine what is truely being said (whats the difference between "made with 100% irish beef" and "made of 100% beef" ) and, sometimes, just basic spelling, they are thrown in with 400 year old literature and poetry.

donegalfella wrote: »

I would rather have a conversation with someone who could read articles such as this one ("The Sopranos: every inch a Shakespearean drama" by Ben Macintyre) and understand the comparisons the author is drawing.

Would you rather have a conversation with someone who chose to right that article because they wanted to, or someone who was forced to right that article because they where forced to?

Mark Hamill

sup_dude wrote: »

Yes thats the one. Thanks


Personally I think the author should tell us whether or not the book or poem has to be deeply analysied to get the full benefit. It is, after all, the author who put in a deeper meaning.

For secondary school, i think we should merely read and go over the basic meaning of the works so the teenagers have a better chance of liking the work, instead of trying to remember every single part of the works and dreading the paper on it at the end. Then they can study it further in third level if wished. This way, you have a higher chance of students going on to do it.

To be honest, I dont know if you would get a higher chance of people going on to third level to study literature if they had a choice in second level, however I do believe you would have a much higher chance of people just reading more if they weren't detered from it by viewing all reading as being a chore, just like it was for them in school.

evercloserunion

If anything surely the English course would benefit from some more or better analysis. English is very interesting as it teaches you to look deeper into the literature, but the potential of the LC English course for teaching you how to analyse literature is surely severely limited by the fact that most of the LC is just memorizing page after page and then vomitting it out as fast as possible in the exam.

I think it would be better if students were allowed to bring unmarked copies of the literature in with them and/or the exam times were longer. That would allow a greater focus on analysis and looking deeper into the material.

Meeja Ireland

[quote=donegalfella;62654786I would rather have a conversation with someone who could read articles such as this one ("The Sopranos: every inch a Shakespearean drama" by Ben Macintyre) and understand the comparisons the author is drawing.[/quote]

Good point, and thanks for the link. My point is that we shouldn't fossilise certain forms of artistic endeavour, and mark them off as inherently important. The status of a particular art form has historically had a lot more to do with social snobbery than with any clear view of its value. Shakespeare's plays, now a standard reference point for high art, were banned from English theatres (along with every other play) shortly after they were written. They weren't High Art.

People still write sneeringly about "television" as if it is vulgar and incapable of serious work, whereas novels are automatically taken seriously. But would anyone with a brain seriously suggest that Amanda Brunker's last novel is automatically better than every TV programme ever?

So why should someone be forced to study one form, and not allowed to discuss the other?

Dades

Originally Posted by Dades
Perhaps there should be a separate optional English Literature subject, in the same way there is an Applied Maths?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Fixed

Ahem - Applied Maths is optional so that was the intent.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mardy Bum

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Does even 15% of the population know what Ulysses is about? NO! Could 10% of the population even attempt to read Penelope on it successfully. Joyce is difficult that was his idea. He wanted to teach people how to read from the beginning of his novels to the end (most wont understand this sentence).

Captain Furball

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Does even 15% of the population know what Ulysses is about? NO! Could 10% of the population even attempt to read Penelope on it successfully. Joyce is difficult that was his idea. He wanted to teach people how to read from the beginning of his novels to the end (most wont understand this sentence).

Do you watch coronation street?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Mark Hamill

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree that being able to read between the lines is a useful skill, but why do you need to teach it with 400 year old prose? Why not, at least start with, something that modern teens can relate to? Then, if Shakespeare is as good as you honestly believe it to be, people will choose to move onto it. But that doesn't happen in the curriculum at the moment. Teens are thrown in at the deep end expected to gain relatable skills from reading Shakespeare. It would be like giving 13 year olds Fermats last theorem to teach them multiplication.

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Depends on the film. Sometimes its very simple, some films just dont interest me and no matter how well they are made, I wont like them because subject material isn't of interest to me. The same thing happens with books, but no recognition is made of this. Its hard to give a detailed reasoned response to "did you like this film/book/poem" if I cant relate to what was happening in the story in the first place. Besides that, the way school english exams are set up, its not wether or not you liked it or not that they care about, its wether or not you can answer the pre set exam questions in a way they want thats important to them.

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know my language and I know that my language is nothing like the english of 16th century England. Might as well say I need to know 16th century alchemy in order to do modern chemistry :rolleyes:.

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It also takes steps to build up to the difficult parts and a good starting point. Students being taught physics are taught simple terms first, and they start with modern physic theories and concepts, they aren't 400 year old physics, in 400 year old terminology, in order to get a better appreciation of modern physics.

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I didn't say otherwise.

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But they dont, hence the fairly poor grammar usage in the general population (how many people get "their", "there" and "they're" mixed up?). Kids learn complex archaic uses of grammar in school, so archaic that they usually need appendices filled with translations for them to understand whats in front of them.

Plowman wrote: »

Media Studies is already a component of the JC programme where kids are taught about advertising, etc.

It wasn't in my day, which wasn't too long ago. Maybe they are finally changing for the better. What is involved in it?

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Many people these days struggle with basic spelling, because of how they where taught in school. Its well and good if 10% of a class can handle ancient poetry and prose, but what do you do with the other 90% who can bearly spell ancient? And I dont like rote learning, but thats not an effective way to teach spelling (its how I was taught spelling in school, you had to learn a page of a spelling book and then you were tested in it).

Mardy Bum

Captain Furball wrote: »

Do you watch coronation street?

No I don't no. Have you read Ulysses?

Mark Hamill

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Then why not have an english course where you are given a contract in an exam, and have to be able to explain what the contract does and doesn't allow? It would seem far more relevent to modern people than teaching Shakespeare and poetry (which can put in optional classes).Other things you could do would to give assignments where you have to desribe, say, a car, but without using the words "wheel", "seat" or "metal", you know get people using a larger vocabulary in order to explain things better. Maybe even having degates or public speakingas part of classes too.
I fully support teaching people to use modern english language to the fullest of its capabilities, I just think you should use modern english to do it.

GeeNorm

sup_dude wrote: »

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.

I couldn't agree more. Watching movies I am aware that there are lots of in-jokes that I miss because I do not fanatically follow certain directors, actors etc. Fair play to people who do (and discuss the movies online) but I have no interest in who wrote, starred in or directed a movie but simply in whether I found it enjoyable.

I view literature in a similar light whereby some people like to research deeply into this historical hollywood and learn the references and in-jokes, whereas people like me couldn't care less who wrote the book, or what genre they were part of.

Valmont

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I consider Harry Potter to be literary chewing gum but I haven't read much of it. I think the kids in school would be better served by something like His Dark Materials or Narnia which are infinitely more complex. Of course, I am not that well versed in Harry Potter so maybe I'm wrong but this is the impression I get.

Meeja Ireland

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree with pretty much everything you say, but I still think Dades' point about the compulsory study of literature is a valid one. By all means teach Shakespeare, and Joyce too, but teach them to people who care.

One of the reasons for the drudgery of English classes is that the teachers need to cater for a lot of students who just want to get through it. Hence the crib-sheets, the list of themes and tones, the deadening idea of reading with a highlight pen in your hand. None of that would happen if everyone who was there was interested in the books.

I really don't see why the study of literature shouldn't be voluntary. I also think the students should have some say in which texts get studied.

getz

for me ,i did not like literature at school,shakespeare ? could not understand him,but then i looked a little closer at charles dickens,and realized he was writing about the social evils of victorian england in 1838,oliver twist, was the first of his reforming novels,these books were read by the better off, not by most of the working classes,who could not read.i love the bronte books also,but on top of my reading lists is always the bronty poems,emily and annes are from the heart,not like most poems that are for financial gain,charlot once sent a poem to the poet laureate for his opinion,he wrote back to say woman should stick to making puddings,she had the last laugh as nobody remembers him anymore .

Mardy Bum

Valmont wrote: »

I consider Harry Potter to be literary chewing gum but I haven't read much of it. I think the kids in school would be better served by something like His Dark Materials or Narnia which are infinitely more complex. Of course, I am not that well versed in Harry Potter so maybe I'm wrong but this is the impression I get.

Harry Potter and the Philosophers stone is up there with Treasure Island, Goodnight Mister Tom and Huckleberry Finn in terms of childrens literature most innovative and remarkable works.

RonMexico

I am not sure what the hell is going on in second level these days but something is seriously wrong. Students are coming into third level to study literature and they have absolutely no interest. They just want to go to college. They look at literature as a chore, the majority of them do not even read outside of college. A lot of them barely even read the college texts. Then they qualify as a teacher and go into second level to teach a subject they have no interest in...oh... wait a minute :eek:

I wouldn't say the above applies to everyone, but it is widespread!

I think B.A. and B.Ed courses should have an aptitude test to weed out the likes of the above.

It is not the only problem, but it is a major one.