The Future of Literature

[Shannanigan]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14823087/?GT1=8717

Just got through reading that article, and despite its low rating by readers, I think it will be more appreciated here.

It's pretty scary, at least to me. I mean, I understand that many, if not most occupations out there do not require that a person have extensive reading skill, and most people can live a normal, happy life without having read classic literature...even my own boyfriend has a promising future set out before him, and he never has, and never plans to, read any books from start to finish, except for The Hobbit.

I know also that literature is already an endeavor enjoyed only by a limited few...at least in the big picture. It's just like any other "hobby," some like cars, some like music, and some like reading...

But I still think that reading and analyzing literature in itself stimulates the mind in ways necessary for humankind to learn how to solve problems and see things in different perspectives. If literature really does become like this article depicts, I think we are all doomed to become just like George Orwell's 1984 world in which some people make it their goal to have only a handful of words make up a language...total elimination of creativity and ability to put thoughts together, to have ideas, to solve problems, and think for oneself.

Any thoughts? It's almost enough to make a future English teacher cry...

[Nightshade]

Oh my did he say what I think he said?:eek2:
thats awful... Imean it makes sence that litrecy is falling high literacy levels have never really been around that long and when you think more and more peole are going to uni/college to study things that dont really require that high a literacy level. But is he saying we should just stop worrying about reading? Thats awful!

[Virgil]

That was a good article Shan, especially for lit net. I'm going to have to give it some thought. I'm sceptical, I must admit. First I'm always sceptical of these studies that somebody performs. They seem to come up with all sorts of things. Reading and writing is still the only way to communicate complex thoughts. Can people communicate strictly by pressing icon buttons in the future? I don't think so. He says that most people wont need to read or write. Well, that is no different than the 19th and 20th centuries. Most people who do physical labor, and that is the majority of people, did not and never did read whole books. I doubt my garbage man reads James Joyce. Most people don't read literature, now, in the past, and probably in the future.

These are my inital thoughts on this. I will have to give it more thought. I'm also interested in what others think here.

[grace86]

Oh wow! There is a lot wrong with this.

Language is what sets humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, our brains can process ideas further than "Danger" "Food" and "Sleep" to think of something in the future...figuratively or literally. Written language is just another way to convey our messages.

When the article says:


The nation’s leaders must be able to read; for those who follow, the ability should be strictly optional.

I am just screaming ouch. 1984 here we come! If people are unwilling (not to get too political here) to vote and to read, well, we are saying that we are willing to take our political leaders at their "character" portrayed through the media. There won't be any future leaders.

This article and subject makes me angry. I don't take reading as a hobby. I do read as a hobby, but I think anyone who does read for leisure recognizes the importance it does have in communication with others, and its necessity to be taught.

The standards for education are going way down, and it is dissapointing (sp?). Reading expands the mind in so many ways, and the verbal skills are terribly necessary. I hate to hear someone in a college course stutter over something that isn't all that difficult to pronounce.

[Nightshade]

Reading and writing is still the only way to communicate complex thoughts. .

ok got to argue with that , course you can communicate complex thoughts through other means after all whhat are words but wierd pictures that symbolise somthing.
I dont know about anyone else but I discoverd somthing the other day i was struggling with this essay and trying to find a word it was their in my head but I could think of it ( dyslexia strikes again:() anyway I kept seeing a concrete mixer in my head eventually the word came to me ( like a good 5-10 minutes later) materialise as in the Y2k scare failed to materialise. but the reason I thought concrete was that concreate is a building material . what I think Im trying to get to is that if you had drawn a concrete mixer a computer a virus symbol Y2K and a X that would mor eor less hav conveyed the same thing.
The only reason words are imoprtant IMO is that they are standardised symbols most people can understand.

[grace86]

Just a disclosure...all that was just my personal opinion.

[Virgil]

ok got to argue with that , course you can communicate complex thoughts through other means after all whhat are words but wierd pictures that symbolise somthing.


Like what?

[Nightshade]

like what what?
oh other means...art, moving picture ( im saying silent here you dont even need the words. But then again spoken word and written word are 2 different kettles of fish arent they? smilies!! ( well ok not yet but one day Im sure youll get smilies sophisticate denough to tell a story.)

I guess it depends how you see words I invented an entire new written alphabet 2 summers ago ( it was along plane ride and I got bored with gone with the wind) and it worked for me becasue they just became new letters , new symbols and completly replaced he tradional a b c , in some ways I think it was better because it was phonetic with symbols for the sh ch th er ar sounds anyway the point of all this is that a thought can be comunicated in all sorts of ways it doesnt need words. But the loss of literature and the ability to use it would be IMO the greatest inellectual tradgedy we could face.

[PeterL]

The majority of people have never had a high level of literacy. Having recently been in a college envitonment, I was amazed at how ignorant many of the students are, and that includes graduates students. I still think that there has been a major deterioration of primary education in the last few decades, especially that no child is left behind any more. But there are many people who are very literate, end I greatly doubt that books and literature will disappear.

Articles like that may become a wake-up call to educators at the primary and secondary levels.

[Shannanigan]

The majority of people have never had a high level of literacy. Having recently been in a college envitonment, I was amazed at how ignorant many of the students are, and that includes graduates students. I still think that there has been a major deterioration of primary education in the last few decades, especially that no child is left behind any more. But there are many people who are very literate, end I greatly doubt that books and literature will disappear.

Articles like that may become a wake-up call to educators at the primary and secondary levels.

I just had to add to this because my experience in college here has proven the same. I work at the Writing Center, and about 50-60 percent of the students who come in are coming in for "grammar checks" because their professor told them to! :eek2: Sadly, most of the grammar problems are things that should have been learned in elementary or early secondary schooling :(. I feel bad, because I think it is really difficult to teach someone grammar, especially without a classroom setting, once they've reached college. I'm training to be a secondary school teacher, but the grammar problems I keep seeing make me think of switching to elementary so I can catch 'em when they're young! :p

...on a little side note to the general direction of discussion so far...there is some discussion of the article here (link to article discussion...remove if I broke a rule please): http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?BoardID=475&ThreadID=86118&BoardsParam=HIPDelay=1 and some very interesting points have been brought up about the value of reading and ANALYZING as a valuable brain activity that also makes us capable of analyzing true events and observations as they happen to us...

[Virgil]

The majority of people have never had a high level of literacy. Having recently been in a college envitonment, I was amazed at how ignorant many of the students are, and that includes graduates students. I still think that there has been a major deterioration of primary education in the last few decades, especially that no child is left behind any more. But there are many people who are very literate, end I greatly doubt that books and literature will disappear.


Well, that's rediculous. No child left behind deals with standards of third graders. And that came into affect 5 years ago. At most the first wave is now in 8th grade. No child left behind has not affected any current college student.

They were saying the same things about college students when I entered college in 1979, 27 years ago. I got C's in my freshman grammar class too. And many people still think I can't spell. I don't think it's changed at all.

[PeterL]

Well, that's rediculous. No child left behind deals with standards of third graders. And that came into affect 5 years ago. At most the first wave is now in 8th grade. No child left behind has not affected any current college student.

They were saying the same things about college students when I entered college in 1979, 27 years ago. I got C's in my freshman grammar class too. And many people still think I can't spell. I don't think it's changed at all.

OK, I stretched a little. The standards have been dropping for a long time. I graduated high school in 1969. At that time there were reasonably well educated high school graduates who were expected to go on to college, and there were those who weren't ca[pable of absorbing much, and it was expected that they would be mechanics and plumbers, who wouldn't need much formal education. Since then the workforce has tended toward jobs that are less mechanical, but the education system hass not improved to accomodate those needs.

When I entered college in 1965, most of the people in my classes were pretty literate, and that was a state university. I gots A's in my freshman rhetoric and English classes, and continued to get A's and B's in such classes. Things have gotten worse, but maybe the change came in the 1970's.

The first people who were subjected to Federal regulations on secondary education have graduated high school now. The regulations started around 1990.

[PeterL]

I just had to add to this because my experience in college here has proven the same. I work at the Writing Center, and about 50-60 percent of the students who come in are coming in for "grammar checks" because their professor told them to! :eek2: Sadly, most of the grammar problems are things that should have been learned in elementary or early secondary schooling :(. I feel bad, because I think it is really difficult to teach someone grammar, especially without a classroom setting, once they've reached college. I'm training to be a secondary school teacher, but the grammar problems I keep seeing make me think of switching to elementary so I can catch 'em when they're young! :p


See my reply to Virgil. It's hard to remember everything about education, but there have been many changes in the way that language was taught, especially in the early grades, and the teaching of grammar became unpopular at some times. If my mother were still alive, I'd ask her. She was a teacher of early chlidhood language arts. I wonder if high schools teachers are making students write.

[Charles Darnay]

In my opinion, literacy is not stressed enough in high schools. English classes seem to be primarily focused on essay writing, which, yes, it is important but there's so much more. And for me at least, high school novel study was a joke! The teacher says, "okay, read these chapters for tomoorw", the the next day we would sit in a group and discuss it. Of course, there would be 2-5 people in the class who actually read the chapters and they would provide the needed info for those who didn't bother.... et voit-la! No need to actually read the book yourself! There is no incentive anymore to read. And of course you could push it further back and blame the parents. If you want your kid to be good at reading, intsil it in him/her at a young age. It's not different that parents who force their kinds into early math programs or piano lessons..... the first 5 years or so is your time to dictate your kid's future..... use it! Hmmm.....ya, that's all.

[Shannanigan]

See my reply to Virgil. It's hard to remember everything about education, but there have been many changes in the way that language was taught, especially in the early grades, and the teaching of grammar became unpopular at some times. If my mother were still alive, I'd ask her. She was a teacher of early chlidhood language arts. I wonder if high schools teachers are making students write.

Yes, its true, the problem isn't limited to today. I've heard of what you've talked about, when "the teaching of grammar became unpopular at times," a professor of mine mentioned how over time, schools tend to focus alternately on grammer, then literature, then grammar, then literature, as each one is deemed to get focused on "too much." I remember public school in California always focusing on essay writing (more summary than analysis) and grammar, but when I moved here and went to private school, it was all about in-class discussion, analytical journal entries, etc.

I guess I got lucky and got both. I wish it could be more like that with other students. Maybe I can find a balance in my class. Personally, I would much much rather a student be able to analyze and understand something, and to voice thoughts on it, than to be able to write a summary down grammatically correct...though once that level is acheived I do think one should try to improve their grammar...

[cuppajoe_9]

First off: colleges and universitites are not roundabout employment agencies, they are institutions of learning. That is why, at least where I live, English is manditory for all first year students, be they viz-coms or geers or pre-pharma or what have you. If 70% of students are viewing education entirely as something that is to their economic advantage, bugger 'em. There are still plenty of profs who are interested in teaching those of us who are genuinely interested in improving ourselves.

[Virgil]

OK, I stretched a little. The standards have been dropping for a long time. I graduated high school in 1969. At that time there were reasonably well educated high school graduates who were expected to go on to college, and there were those who weren't ca[pable of absorbing much, and it was expected that they would be mechanics and plumbers, who wouldn't need much formal education. Since then the workforce has tended toward jobs that are less mechanical, but the education system hass not improved to accomodate those needs.

When I entered college in 1965, most of the people in my classes were pretty literate, and that was a state university. I gots A's in my freshman rhetoric and English classes, and continued to get A's and B's in such classes. Things have gotten worse, but maybe the change came in the 1970's.

The first people who were subjected to Federal regulations on secondary education have graduated high school now. The regulations started around 1990.

I think you're right about the change in the 1970s. I came out of high school with hardly any writing skills. In a way it was good for me; I realized what i lacked and worked hard to improve it. Mainly because I wanted to. But in my generation they had come out with the theory that repetive, disciplined practice was not a good teaching method. We were to absorb it so that we would lose our creativity. It was wrong and stupid. I wonder if they still have this approach.

BTW, Peter, I had not realized your age. Sometimes I think everyone is younger than me around here. :)

[Shalot]

I don't know if what I am about to say relates at all, but here it goes:

When I started working in a low-level job (after graduating with a BA in English ---concentration Tech Comm, because I needed money) in an accounting office, the accountants would joke about me saying that English majors majored in English because they couldn't do anything else.

It seems to me that most people think that being able to read through a work of literature and then analyze it and write a coherent analysis of it that is also grammatically correct isn't important. It doesn't matter and no one cares. Forget Historial Criticism, Structuralism, Feminism and all the others. No one cares.

I even attended a lecture about it while I was working towards my degree. What is the value of this type of education? I encounter people every day who think that people who study English and Philosphy and Religion are just uselss and worthless. You go to school and spend your time reading about these subjects but you don't have a skill. You can't produce anything. You can't contribute anything of value to our modern society.

I think employers expect you to be able to compose a well-written (or at least grammatically correct) business letter in addition to your knowledge of accounting or programming languages (or whatever else) but who cares if you read Moby Dick? To borrow Virgil's verbiage, it's all just "mental masturbation." :D

[stlukesguild]

I must say that I for one am not bothered by all those who fear that the advent of new technologies will lead to future losses in terms of literacy and the end of the book as we know it. If we look at the Renaissance, an era of equal technological importance (the printing press) with regard to books, we find that greater access to reading and writing only lead to greater literacy... but not necessarily a greater appreciation of great literature. The ability to read and appreciate great literature has never been universal... or wide-spread... and probably never will be. The peasants who made up much of medieval society mostly were illiterate... many of those who made up the work force in the factories from the 19th century on were/are functionally illiterate... and I doubt that many who today spend their time crunching numbers on a computer in some cubical spend much time reading "serious literature" Mark Twain noted: "The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them. " We cannot force someone to appreciate great books any more than we can teach them to prefer Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart over the latest popular music, or to value Michelangelo, Vermeer, and Matisse.

There will always be those who appreciate great art in spite of... even because of the intellectual challenges it presents. To them... us (?)... the effort is paid back multifold. Unfortunately, the value of great art to society as a whole, however, is always rather suspect and it must be understood that the education system as a whole was never designed for the enligtenment of individuals, but for preparation of the masses to enter into society.

One can easily blame elementary and secondary education for failing to live up to certain standards, but as numerous education experts have pointed out, one might be far more on-target in blaming today's post-secondary education institutions (colleges, universities, etc...). If such institutions demanded certain standards before students might be accepted... if a large portion of today's high-school students... including those from wealthier suburbia... suddenly found themselves not meeting up to the expectations required for entry into an institution of "higher learning"... how long do you think it would be before parents demanded that the proper money be spent and efforts made to assure that their children would meet such standards?

This, however, is not the situation because colleges and universities are in the business of making money by preparing future employees for the work force as it exists. Real learning... enlightenment... is merely a fortuitous byproduct for some. As things currently stand, nearly every student who truly desires (for whatever reason) to enter into college is accepted, and the vast majority earn nothing but "A"s and "B"s (in spite of the fact that by its very nature... remember the bell-curve?... the vast majority of "average students should be earning the "average" grade of "C". Few jobs, however, require a mastery of grammar, an ability to write well-composed essays on a complex subject, a fluid prose style, a knowledge of the history of the English language, or an understanding and appreciation of great literature, music, and art. As such, there is no way the educational institutions are going to allow some professor of English Literature or Art History to drag down junior's GPA and his or her future at the law firm or cubical of choice.

...Or such, indeed, are my thoughts.:idea:

[lavendar1]

I wonder if high schools teachers are making students write.

I am and I do, because I'm appalled at the inability of many of my students to use English grammar, punctuation, and spelling correctly, not to mention their problems with focus in their writing. For example, I just graded a group of tests that required students to respond to two essay questions using paragraph form -- and I got a bunch of fragmented hogwash in many cases -- even after I'd stressed what a paragraph is and we'd done multiple writing prompts to practice it. It can get quite discouraging; still, me being the lover of writing that I am, I encourage my students to use our language for self-expression...I just want them to be able to use our language properly.

[PeterL]

I guess I got lucky and got both. I wish it could be more like that with other students. Maybe I can find a balance in my class. Personally, I would much much rather a student be able to analyze and understand something, and to voice thoughts on it, than to be able to write a summary down grammatically correct...though once that level is acheived I do think one should try to improve their grammar...

You went to a private school that wasn't limited to what the state education department ordered. I also went to a private high school, where the students were selected, and the teachers were demanding.

There is a direct relationship between analysis and grammar. Grammar is a set of logical rules for language. If you analyze, you are using grammar. Every sentence is a logical proposition, that is subject to logical rules. For example, if you were to say, "I'm here tomorrow." You would be stating a fallacy, and the rules of grammar would immediately show it as false. A stydent who doesn't understand grammar can't do a good analysis of anything. Like many things it can be approached from different directions. If someone can write a good grammatical summary, then the student is ready to do an analysis. Or, if a student can make a clear analysis, the student probably can write a good summary.

[PeterL]

I am and I do, because I'm appalled at the inability of many of my students to use English grammar, punctuation, and spelling correctly, not to mention their problems with focus in their writing. For example, I just graded a group of tests that required students to respond to two essay questions using paragraph form -- and I got a bunch of fragmented hogwash in many cases -- even after I'd stressed what a paragraph is and we'd done multiple writing prompts to practice it. It can get quite discouraging; still, me being the lover of writing that I am, I encourage my students to use our language for self-expression...I just want them to be able to use our language properly.

Can they explain themselves clearly in oral presentations? My observation is that a lot of people can speak perfectly well but can't put the same thoughts into written form. Maybe a short course in logic should be part of the curriculum to go along with grammar. That would show the reason why grammar exists.

[PeterL]

When I started working in a low-level job (after graduating with a BA in English ---concentration Tech Comm, because I needed money) in an accounting office, the accountants would joke about me saying that English majors majored in English because they couldn't do anything else.

That sort of thing always makes me laugh. I didn't need to study accounting, because there is so little to it. Maybe I should have studied engineering, but it was so eeasy that there didn't seem to be any point in studying it. If you want to find out something about engineering, just look it up.



I even attended a lecture about it while I was working towards my degree. What is the value of this type of education? I encounter people every day who think that people who study English and Philosphy and Religion are just uselss and worthless. You go to school and spend your time reading about these subjects but you don't have a skill. You can't produce anything. You can't contribute anything of value to our modern society.


That's news. I thought that novels and screenplays were something. After all, people spend huge amounts of money making movies and usually make a reasonable return of the investment. I guess that some people don't notice the Philosophy is useful in every field. Where would the hard sciences be without philosophy; no where.

[PeterL]

I think you're right about the change in the 1970s. I came out of high school with hardly any writing skills. In a way it was good for me; I realized what i lacked and worked hard to improve it. Mainly because I wanted to. But in my generation they had come out with the theory that repetive, disciplined practice was not a good teaching method. We were to absorb it so that we would lose our creativity. It was wrong and stupid. I wonder if they still have this approach.

I ewmwbwe that creativity thing. I thought that it died out after a few years, but it probably hurt many people.


BTW, Peter, I had not realized your age. Sometimes I think everyone is younger than me around here. :)

There was a typo in my prior post. I entered college in 1969. Now I am 13. I remember reading somewhere how college entry standards dropped dramatically in the late 1800's, when the requirements for Greek and Latin fluency were dropped. I regret not having learned Ancient Greek.

[Shalot]

That's news. I thought that novels and screenplays were something. After all, people spend huge amounts of money making movies and usually make a reasonable return of the investment. I guess that some people don't notice the Philosophy is useful in every field. Where would the hard sciences be without philosophy; no where.

Not everyone can write a bestseller. Not everyone makes money doing it. We have to be able to put food on the table. If you want to read Moby Dick and write a paper about it, then that's fine but you better have a back-up plan. Moby Dick won't pay your power bill. In America, it costs money to go to school after high-school (at 6% if you borrow these days!), so it does need to be relevant, but from my experience, knowledge of English, Philosophy etc just isn't that valuable, which is probably why that article was published in the first place. We're still going to need people to teach the subjects but who is going to want to go to college (and pay money) to get a BA in one of these liberal arts subjects? Give me a good reason why more than a handful of people should study English literature? I'm sorry if I offend but this discussion has been going on for a while and this is the way a lot people think.

[cuppajoe_9]

Philosophy is actually a very valuable course to take no matter what your field. All of your job competition is going to know the stuff, so the employers will be looking somebody who can think and communicate clearly. Show me a job that doesn't require logic.


Give me a good reason why more than a handful of people should study English literature?All the jobs in writing aren't writing novels, you know. Technical writers are always in demand, among other professions.

[Shalot]

yes, cuppajoe, tech writers are in demand. Are you an aspiring tech writer looking for a job?

[Shalot]

Philosophy is actually a very valuable course to take no matter what your field. All of your job competition is going to know the stuff, so the employers will be looking somebody who can think and communicate clearly. Show me a job that doesn't require logic.

All the jobs in writing aren't writing novels, you know. Technical writers are always in demand, among other professions.

How does studying English literature enable you to write a technical document?

[cuppajoe_9]

How does studying English literature enable you to write a technical document?

Presumeably you need to be able to write anything well before you can write a technical document well. English Lit teaches writing, which is why it is (I assume) part of the necesary education.

I am actually an aspiring journalist who is looking to lose his current job.

[PeterL]

Not everyone can write a bestseller. Not everyone makes money doing it. We have to be able to put food on the table. If you want to read Moby Dick and write a paper about it, then that's fine but you better have a back-up plan. Moby Dick won't pay your power bill. In America, it costs money to go to school after high-school (at 6% if you borrow these days!), so it does need to be relevant, but from my experience, knowledge of English, Philosophy etc just isn't that valuable, which is probably why that article was published in the first place. We're still going to need people to teach the subjects but who is going to want to go to college (and pay money) to get a BA in one of these liberal arts subjects? Give me a good reason why more than a handful of people should study English literature? I'm sorry if I offend but this discussion has been going on for a while and this is the way a lot people think.

Did you ever notice that the people who study Computer Science use textbooks? Do you know what the people who wrote the textbooks studied? Try English.
Do you know anything about computer programming? It happens to be based on Symbolic Logic, which is a discipline within Philosophy. And even those programmers use books that were written by, guess what. Yes, People who studied English.

Personally, I don't understand why there are college courses in most of the technical fields. It would beasier for people to learn how to think by studying the liberal arts, then taking a few specialized courses in a technical field.

[cuppajoe_9]

When I started working in a low-level job (after graduating with a BA in English ---concentration Tech Comm, because I needed money) in an accounting office, the accountants would joke about me saying that English majors majored in English because they couldn't do anything else. Whereas the accountants were intrigued by the galmour of it all?

[kilted exile]

Ok, I am getting slightly annoyed by some of the nonsense being written here that engineering and technical subjects are easy. I worked and studied damn hard to complete college. If that makes me stupid I really dont give a bleep, However I will not have my hard work run down and judged by others. Opinions are like arseholes everyone's got one.

I specialize in Water/Wastewater Treatment, what I do frequently requires me to be able to not only remember large chunks of information but to be able to correctly solve various problems. Doing the wrong thing in these situations can cause irrevocable harm and I do not have the opportunity to look up the answer in a book. What I do is a thankless job, and I hapilly accept that the only time my work will be commented on is when something goes wrong. I deal with pressure on a daily basis, I love it, and I am proud to do it.

[PeterL]

Ok, I am getting slightly annoyed by some of the nonsense being written here that engineering and technical subjects are easy. I worked and studied damn hard to complete college. If that makes me stupid I really dont give a bleep, However I will not have my hard work run down and judged by others. Opinions are like arseholes everyone's got one.


No one was suggesting that you were stupid, but most applications of engineering are not especially difficult. There are a finite, and usually small, number of solutions to a problem. If one applies well defined rulesto the data, then one will have a correct solution. In literature there are many rules, and the rules are fuzzy. Which rule to apply in which situation is a major question. Figuring out which rules to apply in which situation is part of the problem, after that, one must figure out how to apply the rule. The possibilities are nearly infinite. In interpretation every word implies or presupposes the rest of the world.

BTWm, I have many more opinions than arseholes.

[SheykAbdullah]

No one was suggesting that you were stupid, but most applications of engineering are not especially difficult. There are a finite, and usually small, number of solutions to a problem. If one applies well defined rulesto the data, then one will have a correct solution. In literature there are many rules, and the rules are fuzzy. Which rule to apply in which situation is a major question. Figuring out which rules to apply in which situation is part of the problem, after that, one must figure out how to apply the rule. The possibilities are nearly infinite. In interpretation every word implies or presupposes the rest of the world.

BTWm, I have many more opinions than arseholes.


Sure there can be said to be finite rules present in engineering*, and sure they are all applied in a right-wrong (functional-nonfunctional would be a better term) context, a non-zero-sum game where the right answer builds a bridge and the wrong answer collapses it, but what I don't think you understand is that in engineering, just as in literature, there are infinite gradations of the rules (in fact there can even be wildly different systems of rules. In some situations you may need to apply a Euclidean geometric solution where triangles all equal 180 degrees of angle and in another Riemannian where all triangles of area greater than one have measurements of angles IN EXCESS of one hundred eighty degrees). Every situation is different and requires a reapplication and fluency of certain fundamental principals in order to create a lasting structure. Engineering, physics, mathematics, and every hard science and technology has as many gradations and intricacies as any subject in the liberal arts, but these variations often come into play only at levels far above and abstract from what the average person sees or knows. You may be able to learn how to build a bridge from reading a book, but unless you are fluent in engineering you will be lost when it comes to actually building it over a real gorge when you are presented with the problems of how to support the structure (besides, I think that one can learn to analyze literature by 'just picking up the books' anyway. We're not dealing with esoteric buddhism here. The authors put down what they want to say). Engineering straight from the book for the average soul would be like writing Shakespeare with a vocabulary of five hundred words.

Ultimately, literary analysis is a non-zero sum game and in those terms can actually be argued to be a little easier to do than engineering. After all, we have high schools students analyzing Beowulf everyday, but how many of them create sanitation facilities? I have often heard the fallacy peddled about by teachers (I call it a fallacy because I firmly believe that there are in right and wrong answers in the analysis of art and literature and these can be gained only through a systematic, but not necesarily guided, study of the author's own opinions and other's criticism) that no opinion is wrong and if that is the case, or it is true that there are few wrong opinions, how hard must it be to find one?

The fact of the matter is, both literary analysis and engineering are fundamentally skills that derive from different sets. They each have their own systems, which must be learned to varying degrees of fluency for them to be practical and while both are difficult in different ways, both are ultimately necesary. In fact, I believe that engineering is not stressed enough. If we are going to complain about a sector of education that is lacking I think we should complain about the lack of manual trades, skills, and mathematical applications along with the decay of grammatical instruction in education today. Reasoning and application of principals in both the arts and sciences are what need be stressed. In fact, I firmly believe that every student regardless of income level should learn a manual trade such a plumbing, car machanics, etc while in school to broaden their understanding of how things function in a real life enviroment. I agree that we should have a world of people that can write exogeses of Davenant and ponder the mysteries of how space is curved, but I think that ideally they should be able to do this while fixing leaky pipes or damaged tie rod ends.

I pesonally don't really believe that the lack of people reading literature today is necesarily a problem, nor do I really believe that it is so much a 'decline.' Some people don't like to read and write and they won't. They never have. Things have always been like this with people's interest in literature. I'm not saying maybe they couldn't be better educated, but many people even if perfectly educated (assuming there could be such a thing) just don't want to read. I don't know what the percentage of the population would be, but it could the vast majority or the far minority. It's really unimportant; people that want to read will read because they can now and people that don't won't. It's how the system works. No one talks about how horrible it is that not more people study math in their free time, or that there are so few people studying particle physics as a hobby, why should literature be any different? I propose that the only reason people discuss the 'decline of literary appreciation' is because reading is a more popular past-time than particle physics, and therefore has more popular support in a 'get everyone to read' crusade. I certainly don't think that one is any more beneficial than the other. They are merely the apparitions of different systems of intellectual reasoning.

* I would argue that there aren't any 'rules' in engineering and mathematics as the concepts are understood. I would say there are no 'rules' because science and math are only man's interpretation of what works in nature and therefore the rules, as are any of man's rules, are infinitely malleable. For proof just look to disciplines that rewrite 'mathematical understanding' such as non-euclidean geometries, modular arithmetic, and quantum physics. An investigation of these subjects will quickly lead to the realization that such 'set' prinicpals that we think we have are really as alterable as changing smufato to chiaroscuro in a painting, with as practical a change in result; i.e. the painting of the manger is still a painting of a manger, only slightly different, maybe a little more dramatic, or totally worthless but interesting.

[kilted exile]

No one was suggesting that you were stupid

No, you were just suggesting that what I do with my life requires zero degree of intelligence and thought. I do not criticise what choices other people have made with their lives, I would like to think I deserve the same courtesy.

[Shannanigan]

No, you were just suggesting that what I do with my life requires zero degree of intelligence and thought. I do not criticise what choices other people have made with their lives, I would like to think I deserve the same courtesy.

You are right, everyone owes eachother that courtesy. It is hard to objectively discuss and understand things that you are not that experienced in (believe me, I know, I'm on a car buff forum :lol: ) Everyday my boyfriend comes home from plumbing covered in sweat and filth, and complains about his day, while I come home mentally exhausted and complaining about my day...and we've had to accept that fact that even if each of us doesn't fully understand why the other chose the path that they did, that is what we are doing and are choosing to continue doing. We each have our own reasons.

Every job is created out of some sort of need, so in essence, no matter what position we are in, we are all needed. Let's respect that.

Back on topic: perhaps not that many jobs need people who are capable of analyzing literature, and perhaps college is meant for personal enlightenment and not preparation to become a citzen of society...but still, isn't the ability to analyze even just a newspaper article, or hell, a political commercial important? How else can the analytical muscles of the brain be excercised so that we do not forget how to think for ourselves?

[bluevictim]

No, you were just suggesting that what I do with my life requires zero degree of intelligence and thought. I do not criticise what choices other people have made with their lives, I would like to think I deserve the same courtesy.I couldn't resist jumping in. I don't think you need to take too much offense at PeterL's comments. It's only natural for people to believe that the discipline they chose to pursue is more significant than the ones that others pursue. After all, that's probably why they chose that discipline in the first place. It's not unreasonable for PeterL to express why he feels the humanities are more important than the sciences.


In literature there are many rules, and the rules are fuzzy. Which rule to apply in which situation is a major question. Figuring out which rules to apply in which situation is part of the problem, after that, one must figure out how to apply the rule. The possibilities are nearly infinite. The same thing can be said of real life mathematics, science, and engineering. The 'apply rules like a robot' stereotype of the technical fields is really only true at the high school and beginning undergraduate levels; it starts to break down at about the junior or senior year in a university. It is true that a large amount of material must be mastered that is very well established, but those are just the basics, like spelling and grammar.

Once the basics are mastered, the engineer has to use his/her judgement to decide how to design a car with competing requirements (like safety, performance, fuel economy, and cost). Surely you have noticed that the rules are "fuzzy" when it comes to judging the "best" design for a car. The mathematician must evaluate the elegance of his/her proofs and results; mathematicians are always making conjectures, many of which remain without proof or disproof for decades. The scientist has to use his/her judgement to decide on what avenue of research might yield the best results. Again, there are many competing goals like tractability and deepness. There are many famous debates in science. Only recently, for example, did Hawking concede a bet to Thorn about naked singularities. You can't go far in the technical fields without constantly running into demands for elegance and beauty.

Personally, I think there is a kind of conservation of difficulty in human endeavors. One thing that I might point out, though, in this discussion of literacy among the "masses" is that I know far more technical people who read good literature than humanists who understand even the basics of mathematics and science. In fact, in my experience, there are far more scientists who are able to (and do) follow scholarly literature in the humanities than there are humanists who even have the ability to follow undergraduate textbooks in the sciences.

[optimisticnad]

i hereby pledge that the 50 children i will breed and in turn their children etc will have books fed to them for breakfast, dinner and supper, sncakc time and tea time they can have newspapers or leaflets depending on how hungry they are. and they will be familiar with this site.

hey, iv just saved a whole generation!

[grace86]

i hereby pledge that the 50 children i will breed and in turn their children etc will have books fed to them for breakfast, dinner and supper, sncakc time and tea time they can have newspapers or leaflets depending on how hungry they are. and they will be familiar with this site.

hey, iv just saved a whole generation!

That's awfully cute Optimistic! :p

[PeterL]

No, you were just suggesting that what I do with my life requires zero degree of intelligence and thought. I do not criticise what choices other people have made with their lives, I would like to think I deserve the same courtesy.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. That is not what I meant, so it is your interpretation. I am mathematically skilled, and I am familiar with sciences and some realms of engineering. Those are things that I find interesting. I went to a a high school that accepted a third of applicants, and I won the math medal for my graduating class, so I am not denigrating math, science, or engineering. In aptitude tests I score about the same for numerical and verbal, and the total is high enough for my membership in Mensa to be valid.

[PeterL]

The same thing can be said of real life mathematics, science, and engineering. The 'apply rules like a robot' stereotype of the technical fields is really only true at the high school and beginning undergraduate levels; it starts to break down at about the junior or senior year in a university. It is true that a large amount of material must be mastered that is very well established, but those are just the basics, like spelling and grammar.


As I put in another post, I was not denigrating any discipline. I personally find science and math easy, and I enjoy literature more.

[kilted exile]

I'm sorry that you feel that way. That is not what I meant, so it is your interpretation. I am mathematically skilled, and I am familiar with sciences and some realms of engineering. Those are things that I find interesting. I went to a a high school that accepted a third of applicants, and I won the math medal for my graduating class, so I am not denigrating math, science, or engineering. In aptitude tests I score about the same for numerical and verbal, and the total is high enough for my membership in Mensa to be valid.

Guy, you're missing the point. Reading a book on engineering and thinking that you would be able to work as an engineer, is the same as reading a car manual and thinking you could drive in F1. There is the theory and then there is the practice.

On a completely unrelated note, I wouldnt care if your high school only accepted 1 student a year, and you won every prize going. I certainly dont care about your membership to Mensa. It has nothing to do with the discussion

[stlukesguild]

I find the direction this conversation has taken to be quite enlightening. Without a doubt there is still a clear misunderstanding... if not an open prejudice... which exists between those practicioners of the applied sciences and those involved in the more esoteric and abstract world of the arts. Those employed in areas where mathematics and science are practically employed might be stereotyped as unable to "think outside the box"... to be driven by unchanging rules and numbers... to be uncreative and focused solely upon practical results... and by logical extention... upon financial gain. Those in the arts, on the other hand, might be stereotyped as impractical dreamers... living in an ivory tower while leeching off the labors of the practical workers.

While most may deny that such stereotypes still exist... or that they retain any hint of such prejudice themselves, I am well aware that such concepts are still commonplace. As a visual artist I work somewhere in the middle between these to polarities. Visual artists have long lived with something of the stigma that what they do (because it involves manual labor?) is somehow less intellectually rigorous than what a poet, a novelist, a literary historian, a composer, or a philosopher does. Perhaps this should not be surprising, considering that historically the arts were closely linked with other practical forms of skilled labor such as carpentry, masonry, iron smithery, etc... more so than to the so-called "fine arts"... at least until challenged by artist/scholars of the Renaissance.

I have always been facinated with the great Renaissance geniuses such as Leonardo, Brunelleschi, Michelangelo, Alberti, etc... who often blurred the lines between the arts and the sciences, and challenged the notion that one branch of thinking was superior to another and that such disciplines were by their very nature exclusionary. I am currently reading a lovely biography on Brunelleschi, who designed the brilliant dome of the cathedral of Florence (the famous Duomo), an engineering feat that amazes to this day. I quite concur with Sheykabdullah's suggestion that we might just as well bemoan the lack of knowledge and ability in the manual skills held by many of today's graduates, as we do the lack of skill and ability in reading, writing, and verbal communications.

I personally do wish that I had a bit more ability with certain practical mechanical skills... especially those related to auto mechanics. Those inevitable visits to the auto mechanic are always far too costly. As an artist... a painter... practicality demands a fair deal of certain carpentry (and often other related) abilities. Building one's own stretchers and frames is a necessity for almost any practicing artist. In most cases such carpentry skills prove themselves to be useful elsewhere (in constructing one's own studio space, additions to the home... or in the case of a bibliophile such as myself... is the construction of bookshelves for my ever expanding library).

I was quite shocked by a recent partner that entered into the studio I share with three other artists. While he had a degree in what one would assume to be one of the more practical areas of the visual arts: architecture, he had virtually no experience or ability working with tools, and was surprisingly rather unknowledgable in certain basic elements of construction which we had undertaken to create his work space and storage racks. Our mechanically stunted studio mate is quite limitted to what he can purchase commercially... or pay others to do for him. Rather than limiting one's ability to think "outside the box", I would think that any knowledge in other fields is of value in offering a greater range of perspectives... and possibilities.

[SleepyWitch]

Opinions are like arseholes everyone's got one.


wuahahhahaha :) that's hilarious kilted :) do you mind if i learn it by heart to insult my future students?
your job sounds cool :)

what are you fussing about, Shanna?
Mediaevalists and stone age scholars will have a unique opportunity to study how communication worked without literacy. It will be even better than experimental archeology!

Nah, seriously, I think the author of this article has got a point. If nothing gets done societies will split up into those who can read and those who can't and those who can't will of course be those who are already socially disadvantaged today. So they will never have a chance to climb the social laddder.

As PeterL said, the workforce has changed and there aren't many manual jobs left, so the main problem is that those "workers" don't exist anymore. If there really were loads of jobs that didn't require literacy I'd be inclined to say "So what?", but seeing as most jobs in the Western world require reading and writing, the situation is totally different than it was in the 19th century.

When I was studying in England, the Witch (our Shakespeare tutor) said I was the only student in her tutorial who got the grammar right (all the other students were native speakers)! :blush: How embarrassing is that? It was true, though. E.g. one student wrote "... he lives in the city *COMMA* WHO"

[PeterL]

I have always been facinated with the great Renaissance geniuses such as Leonardo, Brunelleschi, Michelangelo, Alberti, etc... who often blurred the lines between the arts and the sciences, and challenged the notion that one branch of thinking was superior to another and that such disciplines were by their very nature exclusionary. I am currently reading a lovely biography on Brunelleschi, who designed the brilliant dome of the cathedral of Florence (the famous Duomo), an engineering feat that amazes to this day. I quite concur with Sheykabdullah's suggestion that we might just as well bemoan the lack of knowledge and ability in the manual skills held by many of today's graduates, as we do the lack of skill and ability in reading, writing, and verbal communications.


Me too, I don't see a huge difference between the arts and the sciences. I wish that we had more people who were comfortable in both. Some people don't look outside of their specialities. I place a large part of the blame on higher education, many colleges and universities are technical schools where students get specialized training in a narrow discipline, without having gotten generalized training. Alas, there aren't jobs for Renaisance men any more, just for specialists.

[optimisticnad]

That's awfully cute Optimistic! :p

thanks! *she bites her lips together to prevent herself from saying something nasty because she hates it when people cal her 'cute'* lol) thanks anyway.

i wait for the day for someone to say 'thats awfully sexy optimistic'. :-)

[Shannanigan]

what are you fussing about, Shanna?

(~wakes up, shakes head~) huh? what? fussing? ...the discussion has gone in a totally different direction in which I thought it would, which should totally be expected for a literature forum :lol: Sadly, I have no real knowledge of mechanics, engineering, or more complicated mathmatics, though I do appreciate the importance of people with that knowledge in this world, so I'm backing out and assuming the position of observer here :D

[SleepyWitch]

oops, sorry.. i've muddled up my tenses again :)
I was referring to the article, not to what you said about respecting each other etc. :)
What I was trying to say was "So people can't read and write? What's the big deal?" plus I was joking :)

[grace86]

thanks! *she bites her lips together to prevent herself from saying something nasty because she hates it when people cal her 'cute'* lol) thanks anyway.

i wait for the day for someone to say 'thats awfully sexy optimistic'. :-)

Hmm, I will have to remember that one Optimistic.

[Shannanigan]

oops, sorry.. i've muddled up my tenses again :)
I was referring to the article, not to what you said about respecting each other etc. :)
What I was trying to say was "So people can't read and write? What's the big deal?" plus I was joking :)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

See, I laugh? It joke? Sleepy silly! :p

[SleepyWitch]

er? I'm confused :):sick:

[Shannanigan]

er? I'm confused :):sick:

Good :D I am too! :lol:

[SleepyWitch]

what are you fussing about, Shanna?
Mediaevalists and stone age scholars will have a unique opportunity to study how communication worked without literacy. It will be even better than experimental archeology!
yeehas, I've finally found an opportunity to quote myself :)
"Mediaevalists and stone age scholars will have a unique opportunity to study how communication worked without literacy. It will be even better than experimental archeology!" = ironic :)

[Shannanigan]

yeehas, I've finally found an opportunity to quote myself :)
"Mediaevalists and stone age scholars will have a unique opportunity to study how communication worked without literacy. It will be even better than experimental archeology!" = ironic :)

Ahhhhhhh...grasshopper see more clearly now ;)

Perhaps grasshopper is one of the masses unable to comprehend sarcasm :lol:

I apologize, really, I'm just in a quirky mood because of all the papers I'm writing...with all the academic language I'm using, you guys are the victims when I let all my random, unacademic, mindless dribble out into my posts :p