advice please

[k.brignell]

I want to study English Literature at university next year but have heard horror stories from people who complain that studing literature made them lose the love of reading. Could anyone studying English literature please tell me how the experience has affected thier reading habits, thankyou.

[kasie]

This comes from more years ago than I care to remember - when I had finished my Finals, I was 'read out': too many late night reading sessions, too many heavy tomes weighing down the shoulder bag, too much coffee consumed while discussing the books with fellow students and/or bending the ear of non-English Main friends who got caught Ancient Mariner style with my latest discovery/enthusiasm. If it was in print, I didn't want to know. I got on with the rest of my life, went on holiday, started my first job, moved into a new flat, wrote letters to people who believed I must have emigrated or dropped off the edge of the world, visited doting aunts to thank them for their financial and moral support, did odd jobs for my parents as a beginning of saying thank you for the last four years.

And it was while I was dusting and tidying up for my mother that I picked up her library books and idly flicked through one - it was a Jean Plaidy, I believe - and I was back: my mother came into the room to find why it had gone so quiet and burst out laughing, saying something like, 'I'm so glad to have my daughter back, we were seriously worried about you, you've never been without a book in your hand since the age of five.'

I joined the library in my new home town - only five minutes' walk from the flat, oh joy - and borrowed Fathers and Sons (I was saddened by a recent Forum Poster who had found it dull), Within a budding grove, The Natural, anything that caught my eye. I hunted for those notes I'd written to myself of titles or authors that I'd promised myself I would read 'one day'; I read general criticism in the weekend papers and set off down the road to the library in search of new authors, often people I wouldn't have touched for Serious Study (C P Snow, Barbara Pym, Issac Singer were discoveries of that period). In short, I discovered a whole new world of the written world, not just the Classic or the Worthy - I put to use the teaching I had received about critical assessment while shedding some of the precious preconceptions I had acquired and re-discovered what I had known before I went deeply into Literature-with-a-Capital-L: that reading is fun, it has many levels and many pleasures (some of them guilty ones, tutors' precepts die hard!) and it is a continuing adventure. It was worth the wait of several months post-study to remember that.

[JBI]

It all depends how and where you study (and what, but that is tied closely to where). I couldn't see myself studying literature in the US and liking it (then again, I couldn't see myself as being happy living in the US), yet I enjoy what I do here in Toronto well enough. Though, I recommend padding your major if it is English with another major, like another language, or an area studies major.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I want to study English Literature at university next year but have heard horror stories from people who complain that studing literature made them lose the love of reading. Could anyone studying English literature please tell me how the experience has affected thier reading habits, thankyou.

I'm about to start my sixth year of study on a seven year part-time degree in Literature and Creative Media, and that study has hardly lost my love of reading! Undoubtedly though studying literature makes you approach reading differently, which I suppose could spoil it for some people. Personally though I just don't buy that argument at all if I'm honest, and I have to question how much someone really loves reading if they can be easily put of by studying it, i.e gaining knowledge and understanding of it, reading literature from different perspectives, understanding it in greater depth. I can fully understand a short-term burn out, but seriously anything longer than this??? No.

It all depends on how much you are interested in literature, how much you love reading. In many ways the study of art and literature is much more than something used to launch a job or career, though it can do that, for many literature students though, it is much more than this, it can be a devotion, a passion.

If you were asking how much money you could make from the study of literature I would say that it is definitely not for you, I would say study IT or business or something, but you didn't ask that. You asked if it would get rid of your love of reading, and the answer is no, but that reading will be different in the future.

[Scheherazade]

Until I started studying literature "properly", I used to be a casual reader; I read a lot but mostly paperbacks and without paying much attention to what goes on between the lines.

While studying at university, I came to realise that there was much more to the books and that made me really love reading and literature... with appreciation.

I cannot imagine any book-lovers losing their love of reading and books because they have studied them.

[mal4mac]

I cannot imagine any book-lovers losing their love of reading and books because they have studied them.

It does happen. Sonja Lyubomirsky in "The How of Happiness" gives an account of how a friend of hers became unhappy and lost the joy she used to get from literature by being forced to go through the academic mill. It turned an "intrinsic" interest into a "forced" extrinsic path to a degree.

For instance, you may be forced to read Heidegger, but just can't stand Heidegger, but have to read him, and all the (even less readable) commentary on him to get that piece of paper. Then you become resentful. They you hate the department for forcing you to do this. Then you hate literature and all critics. So you read C.P.Snow in revolt, because no critic rates C.P. Snow.

The same happened for me in my study of physics. It wasn't "physics" that was at fault but certain classes I had to go through, and (mainly) bad teaching.

If Harold Bloom is right then bad teaching is endemic in English Literature departments. Note, unlike the English student who was reduced to reading C.P.Snow after the trauma of going through forced reading of the classics, I read the acknowledged classics "for fun" (e.g. recently, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Plato...) and do get great pleasure from them, a lot more than I get from C.P. Snow... And I've never taken a University class in any classics. So maybe it's the way students are taught?

[LitNetIsGreat]

It does happen. Sonja Lyubomirsky in "The How of Happiness" gives an account of how a friend of hers became unhappy and lost the joy she used to get from literature by being forced to go through the academic mill. It turned an "intrinsic" interest into a "forced" extrinsic path to a degree.

For instance, you may be forced to read Heidegger, but just can't stand Heidegger, but have to read him, and all the (even less readable) commentary on him to get that piece of paper. Then you become resentful. They you hate the department for forcing you to do this. Then you hate literature and all critics. So you read C.P.Snow in revolt, because no critic rates C.P. Snow.
The same happened for me in my study of physics. It wasn't "physics" that was at fault but certain classes I had to go through, and (mainly) bad teaching.

If Harold Bloom is right then bad teaching is endemic in English Literature departments. Note, unlike the English student who was reduced to reading C.P.Snow after the trauma of going through forced reading of the classics, I read the acknowledged classics "for fun" (e.g. recently, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Plato...) and do get great pleasure from them, a lot more than I get from C.P. Snow... And I've never taken a University class in any classics. So maybe it's the way students are taught?

I think it is quite an absurd thought and a ridiculous expectation that somewhere along the study of a degree (or any form of learning) that a student is not going to come across any number of texts that they don't enjoy, but so what? Sometimes it is just for the greater good of learning. If a person can't be bothered to read the text and takes to reading crap it protest to the evil elite professors of literature then so be it, that's not a loss, good riddance to them. I don't know who this friend of Sonja Lyubomirsky is, but I have certainly come across that type before and I have little time for them.

There is a big difference between reading for pleasure and the study of literature at a high academic level, a big difference. It takes commitment and dedication to study literature, not all of it is a walk in the park with authors you admire, how can it be? It is no different from studying anything else, what do you expect the class tutors to do to tell their students only to read the things they like and forget the rest? It is totally absurd.

Reading for pleasure and studying is completely different. There are plenty of books, and even whole modules of stuff that I have personally disliked but that was never a reason for being pathetic. If you are a student of literature you are a student of literature, you are there to learn not necessarily to appreciate every text on the entire degree, indeed that would only be a sign of a lack of personal judgement and opinion if that were the case wouldn't it? If people can't hack the study of literature, then they shouldn't have signed up in the first place. Actually to the OP if you want to know what studying literature is like then I would suggest getting hold of Pamela or Clarissa by Samuel Richardson, and if you can get through one of those without being bored to death then you are good for it.

Who said that studying was ever going to be easy anyway?

As for blaming bad teaching, I am not really a fan of blaming the teacher on any level, though they have their side of the bargain no doubt, but still in my experience that is usually the first excuse of a lazy student.

[kelby_lake]

I want to study English Literature at university next year but have heard horror stories from people who complain that studing literature made them lose the love of reading. Could anyone studying English literature please tell me how the experience has affected thier reading habits, thankyou.

Don't you already do it at high school? Surely you can tell whether you enjoy looking at literature critically or not?
They aren't serious readers if they wuss out every time they have to think about a book a different way.

[Drkshadow03]

I think it is quite an absurd thought and a ridiculous expectation that somewhere along the study of a degree (or any form of learning) that a student is not going to come across any number of texts that they don't enjoy, but so what? Sometimes it is just for the greater good of learning. If a person can't be bothered to read the text and takes to reading crap it protest to the evil elite professors of literature then so be it, that's not a loss, good riddance to them. I don't know who this friend of Sonja Lyubomirsky is, but I have certainly come across that type before and I have little time for them.

There is a big difference between reading for pleasure and the study of literature at a high academic level, a big difference. It takes commitment and dedication to study literature, not all of it is a walk in the park with authors you admire, how can it be? It is no different from studying anything else, what do you expect the class tutors to do to tell their students only to read the things they like and forget the rest? It is totally absurd.

Reading for pleasure and studying is completely different. There are plenty of books, and even whole modules of stuff that I have personally disliked but that was never a reason for being pathetic. If you are a student of literature you are a student of literature, you are there to learn not necessarily to appreciate every text on the entire degree, indeed that would only be a sign of a lack of personal judgement and opinion if that were the case wouldn't it? If people can't hack the study of literature, then they shouldn't have signed up in the first place. Actually to the OP if you want to know what studying literature is like then I would suggest getting hold of Pamela or Clarissa by Samuel Richardson, and if you can get through one of those without being bored to death then you are good for it.

Who said that studying was ever going to be easy anyway?

As for blaming bad teaching, I am not really a fan of blaming the teacher on any level, though they have their side of the bargain no doubt, but still in my experience that is usually the first excuse of a lazy student.

Eh, there are some really crappy and defensive professors in the Humanities. Knowledge of a subject and ability to teach it are not the same thing. Literary studies in particular has the tendency to attract mediocrity.

There are always texts a student won't like, but hopefully they enjoy the majority of what they're reading, otherwise they're in the wrong field.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the Original poster:

I know I once read an essay by a literature professor who said grad school made him lose his love for reading. It isn't just analysis of the texts, but how they make you analyze the texts, the endless dissection with a Marxist, Foucauldian, Derridian lens, etc., even if you've already figured out that you're not really into those thinkers. The professor of the essay said eventually he started enjoying literature again years later.

One needs to remember, it's not like you're constantly getting a lot of variety by shifting between teaching Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales and Gustave Flaubert's Madame Bovary. If you're a medievalist teaching Chaucer, you've probably read that text forty, fifty, sixty times, if not more (teaching it semester after semester). Some professors maintain their passion, while others grow tired quickly.

From the student's side of things, undergrad is your chance to read literature of all sorts, acquire a basic understanding of the major literary periods and literary devices, learn the basics to writing an essay of criticism, and most importantly to develop critical thinking skills. At least, that's how it works in America. You learn a little bit about literature, but really the study of English at this point is for the purpose of developing your critical thinking and writing skills. Of course, it also varies on which colleges you attend. A college with a Great Books program is going to be a bit more rigorous. The Universities I attended were a bit more of a hodgepodge.

Graduate school is where you develop your actual knowledge of literature (in the U.S.); they assume you know how to write a critical essay, have developed the critical thinking skills to make analysis and engage in intelligent discussion about the issues raised in a text, and know the basic components of literature. You also should hopefully come into grad school with some sort of focus/interest (19th Century American Lit, the Victorian Novel, Post-Colonial Studies, African American Literature, Romantic Poetry, etc.). At this point you're usually developing your knowledge of literature in a particular sub-area. This is where people tend to get burned out and lose their passion for literature.

Personally, I found myself burned out on writing papers rather than the actual literature itself. Reading the literature and discussing it in class was fun; writing long essays about it, making sure my Work Cited page was perfect, got tiring after awhile. As for avoiding theory or thinkers that you know already irritate you, the key is to figuring out professors. I avoided professors who were theory-heavy in my graduate program, opting for professors who spent more time reading the actual literature and who offered courses and read books I was actually interested in studying. Remember, you do have some choice in the matter, usually.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Eh, there are some really crappy and defensive professors in the Humanities. Knowledge of a subject and ability to teach it are not the same thing. Literary studies in particular has the tendency to attract mediocrity.

There are always texts a student won't like, but hopefully they enjoy the majority of what they're reading, otherwise they're in the wrong field.

Why would the field of literature attract mediocrity more than any other subject, than say engineering or IT? I don't really buy that. The law of averages shares out just as many "bad" teachers as there are "good" regardless of the discipline.

[Mathor]

Call me easy-going, but I've read a lot of different types of books in English classes, classics and some more watered-down mediocre stuff, but I have yet to study a book in any class that I have not thoroughly enjoyed.

I didn't hate To Kill a Mockingbird or Catcher in the Rye or Edgar Allen Poe, and I also didn't hate Shakespeare, Chaucer, Dostoevsky, The Great Gatsby, or even things like Chinua Achebe, etc. I enjoy studying literature as a whole, good or bad. And I have yet to read a book in the school system that I've found less than worthwhile. In the fall I'm taking a Romantic literature class, which Im pumped for!

[kelby_lake]

Why would the field of literature attract mediocrity more than any other subject, than say engineering or IT? I don't really buy that. The law of averages shares out just as many "bad" teachers as there are "good" regardless of the discipline.

Because some Humanities people have inflated egos. It's not just their knowledge of facts on the line, it's their whole intellectual being.

Engineering and IT, there is one way of doing it. No 'half-right'.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Call me easy-going, but I've read a lot of different types of books in English classes, classics and some more watered-down mediocre stuff, but I have yet to study a book in any class that I have not thoroughly enjoyed.

I didn't hate To Kill a Mockingbird or Catcher in the Rye or Edgar Allen Poe, and I also didn't hate Shakespeare, Chaucer, Dostoevsky, The Great Gatsby, or even things like Chinua Achebe, etc. I enjoy studying literature as a whole, good or bad. And I have yet to read a book in the school system that I've found less than worthwhile. In the fall I'm taking a Romantic literature class, which Im pumped for!

Then you have never read Pamela...:eek:

I think the skill is, a skill which a lot of people lack or fail to understand, is to view works of literature objectionably. It is the ability to be able to stand back from the text and view it almost coldly, scientifically if you like, with good or bad works, or works that may not personally inspire, almost divorced from personal opinion. It goes against the grain in many respects to be able to do this, because as I said earlier many people, me included, see literature as something of a passion, and not just a cold thing to learn in order to get from A to B, nevertheless the ability to be able to view literature in such a way (at times) is a skill which is necessary for study. Think for example of the language used in academic essays, it is a cold, objective voice as free from as much hasty opinion as possible.

There are very few texts which in my five years of degree study that I didn't see the point of studying, all of it was for a good cause, and actually the texts are in the minority of the ones I didn't like, but some people never get passed the stage whereby if they aren't "into" the book by page 10 then it is somehow the fault of the aloof tutor or something. This sort of thing is just ridiculous, like that friend of Sonja Lyubomirsky's who was described earlier. Either way it seems certain that if you study a great amount of texts over a long period then some of them will jar. This is not a problem in itself it is just a matter of how you deal with it that counts. Picking up Dan Brown and renouncing the evil tutor is not one that I would recommend.



Because some Humanities people have inflated egos. It's not just their knowledge of facts on the line, it's their whole intellectual being.
Engineering and IT, there is one way of doing it. No 'half-right'.

Yes there are poor tutors or those with inflated egos but I would still maintain that there is not a greater pool of them limited to the humanities. I have been laughed at by computer people for using Power Point and Publisher when there are better computer programmes available on the market, is that not just snobbery of a different kind? I would say that perhaps snobbery or perceived snobbery (which is what you are referring to) is just perhaps more obviously recognised or associated with the humanities, but that it is not necessary true if we looked at the whole picture, across the range of all the subject areas.

[Hank Stamper]

Because some Humanities people have inflated egos. It's not just their knowledge of facts on the line, it's their whole intellectual being.

Engineering and IT, there is one way of doing it. No 'half-right'.

bad teachers are usually the ones who are just not that interested in what they are doing (or are poor communicators etc), I don't think it has anything to do with the subject they teach and whether or not they have an inflated ego..

As for the original question - I have to say since starting my English literature degree my love for reading has grown, although my reading habits have changed (I read a much broader range of literature now) and like Neely has already mentioned, the way you approach reading will change..

having said that I can still read books now for total pleasure without being analytical etc

[youpushme]

I'm going into my final year of studying English Lit at University and although there have been times when I have been so frustrated and bored by certain works, I have been introduced to some literature that I would never have picked myself and that I actually enjoyed/appreciated. It's definitely increased my love of litearture because I have been able to study works that I previously wouldn't have even looked at.

[JBI]

Why would the field of literature attract mediocrity more than any other subject, than say engineering or IT? I don't really buy that. The law of averages shares out just as many "bad" teachers as there are "good" regardless of the discipline.

There are two kinds of English majors, those who love English, and the study of literature and those who didn't know what to take, I think the ratio is like 1/30, give or take.

Now, if you compare that with other subjects - I can't see anyone in East Asian studies doing it for "Fun" or because they didn't know what to take - the language component is enough to kill someone (at my school, you'd need credits in either Chinese, Korean, or Japanese, as well as intensive history and theory credits) whereas, something like English would require, for a specialist 12 courses, at 2-4 essays each, and 0-2 tests each. Not saying it is easy - it isn't, but to get a passable grade, I think any proficient speaker in English can get there (to get over the 85 hump however is incredibly difficult, and that is where the 1/30 bit comes in).

I don't know - I'm planning to either go to law school, or grad-school to study comparative literature, but think of what people who only do English, get c- - b+ averages (generally, where I go to school, every class finishes with that as an average), and graduate right off of that have actually learned. Go to any real first year class at a major institution, and count the heads - you'll find, come test day, there are far more people present, with spark notes in their bags, and faces that look like "lets just get this over with".


Now, clearly there are serious people - generally English is less serious than more general fields, like literary studies or something or Canadian studies (which is a bilingual/multi-lingual degree) sort of things, simply because of the people they attract. One doesn't see many jokers in a physics major for instance, or in a life science major, simply because it is hard to do well in those fields unless you really work. English is sort of like a dumping ground, with everyone who didn't know what to take but thinks they may like books ending up there. Political science is perhaps more so than English, but still, English is such a dumping ground, and only really starts to get interesting as you progress in levels towards third and fourth year courses.

That being said, it is no less noble of a field than any other, it is just far more accessible for the average person. Generally, if you are an OK writer who tries a lot, you could get into the b+ a- bracket pretty easily. The A+ bracket is challenging to get into though (getting over that A- hump is so damn difficult, especially when you were busy the previous weeks and had no time to rewrite, and rewrite, and edit, and rewrite) but if you can manage it, generally you will like English - of course, there is some variation - if you only take courses with modern sort of niche implications, like Fantasy or Science fiction or Mystery, or Children's fiction, you probably may feel a bit limited. Also, more contemporary stuff I have found tends to be a little bit more theory heavy, with all sorts of random junk the Proff used in his/her Ph.D surfacing - like trauma theory and post-modern apocalyptic structures and whatnot. But from my understanding, things are a little bit different Down South - our programs here force people to diversify, so they are forced to take courses from different periods, and different teachers, so they all sort of function like Great Books courses, except without this insistence on so defined a structure, and with wider ranges.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think though that the US and Canadian system is very much different from that of the UK in regards to university study. I could see why people would take literature over, say physics, in the US sort of system where everybody has to take a major, but in the UK you elect to study a single subject for three years and that's that. I don't think that strays would necessarily opt for three years of literary study just for the sake of it, like in the US system for example, so that is where I was really coming from with my earlier points.

In the UK I think that there are few 18 year old's who would commit to studying literature for three years (full-time) if they didn't have some sort of interest in the subject, especially considering the debts incurred in the present, so called economic climate. I think at the very least they would have some sort of love of reading, or have at least read a book!

[Drkshadow03]

There are two kinds of English majors, those who love English, and the study of literature and those who didn't know what to take, I think the ratio is like 1/30, give or take.

Now, if you compare that with other subjects - I can't see anyone in East Asian studies doing it for "Fun" or because they didn't know what to take - the language component is enough to kill someone (at my school, you'd need credits in either Chinese, Korean, or Japanese, as well as intensive history and theory credits) whereas, something like English would require, for a specialist 12 courses, at 2-4 essays each, and 0-2 tests each. Not saying it is easy - it isn't, but to get a passable grade, I think any proficient speaker in English can get there (to get over the 85 hump however is incredibly difficult, and that is where the 1/30 bit comes in).

I don't know - I'm planning to either go to law school, or grad-school to study comparative literature, but think of what people who only do English, get c- - b+ averages (generally, where I go to school, every class finishes with that as an average), and graduate right off of that have actually learned. Go to any real first year class at a major institution, and count the heads - you'll find, come test day, there are far more people present, with spark notes in their bags, and faces that look like "lets just get this over with".


Now, clearly there are serious people - generally English is less serious than more general fields, like literary studies or something or Canadian studies (which is a bilingual/multi-lingual degree) sort of things, simply because of the people they attract. One doesn't see many jokers in a physics major for instance, or in a life science major, simply because it is hard to do well in those fields unless you really work. English is sort of like a dumping ground, with everyone who didn't know what to take but thinks they may like books ending up there. Political science is perhaps more so than English, but still, English is such a dumping ground, and only really starts to get interesting as you progress in levels towards third and fourth year courses.

That being said, it is no less noble of a field than any other, it is just far more accessible for the average person. Generally, if you are an OK writer who tries a lot, you could get into the b+ a- bracket pretty easily. The A+ bracket is challenging to get into though (getting over that A- hump is so damn difficult, especially when you were busy the previous weeks and had no time to rewrite, and rewrite, and edit, and rewrite) but if you can manage it, generally you will like English - of course, there is some variation - if you only take courses with modern sort of niche implications, like Fantasy or Science fiction or Mystery, or Children's fiction, you probably may feel a bit limited. Also, more contemporary stuff I have found tends to be a little bit more theory heavy, with all sorts of random junk the Proff used in his/her Ph.D surfacing - like trauma theory and post-modern apocalyptic structures and whatnot. But from my understanding, things are a little bit different Down South - our programs here force people to diversify, so they are forced to take courses from different periods, and different teachers, so they all sort of function like Great Books courses, except without this insistence on so defined a structure, and with wider ranges.

Exactly, English has always been something of a "soft" subject that attracts people who don't know what else they want to do. Much to my surprise, some of those people still linger around in grad school. You also get a combo (someone who loves literature and basically didn't know what else to major in)l these people also end up in grad school because they still don't know what they want to do with their lives.

It is a subject that is geared much more strongly to being able to study it on your own outside academia. It would be much harder to properly study biology or physics or chemistry on your own (though not impossible), especially when one considers lab components than it would be to study literature.

On the other hand, I didn't find undergrad English or other Gen ed subjects or my history minor to be all that difficult really. Oh sure, I got some "b"s, but I was also able to pull plenty of "A"s by sort of just showing up, doing the required reading, skipping my allowed three classes, and figuring out how to write a decent paper. If you're taking mostly Humanities course undergrad really isn't that hard or time consuming. At least, that's what I found. Grad school was another story!!!

[LitNetIsGreat]

Exactly, English has always been something of a "soft" subject that attracts people who don't know what else they want to do. Much to my surprise, some of those people still linger around in grad school. You also get a combo (someone who loves literature and basically didn't know what else to major in)l these people also end up in grad school because they still don't know what they want to do with their lives.

It is a subject that is geared much more strongly to being able to study it on your own outside academia. It would be much harder to properly study biology or physics or chemistry on your own (though not impossible), especially when one considers lab components than it would be to study literature.

On the other hand, I didn't find undergrad English or other Gen ed subjects or my history minor to be all that difficult really. Oh sure, I got some "b"s, but I was also able to pull plenty of "A"s by sort of just showing up, doing the required reading, skipping my allowed three classes, and figuring out how to write a decent paper. If you're taking mostly Humanities course undergrad really isn't that hard or time consuming. At least, that's what I found. Grad school was another story!!!

Yes but I wasn't taking about the US system, which incidentally sounds a little easy to pass based on what you are saying here: skipping the allowed three classes? Pulling A's by sort of showing up? Not that hard or time consuming? Is this 16-18 year study? This would be equivalent to A-level study in the UK if so.

The breakdown in the UK is as follows: 14-16 GCSE (in secondary school), 16-18 A-Levels (college), 18-21 Degree (University). That is standard, extra options include: 21+ Major, University (one year study), 22+ Phd (Dr) Independent study, which is the highest level achievable, (three years). Actually the only compulsory study is GCSE, you can leave at sixteen with little knowledge of anything if you so choose.

There is obviously a big discrepancy of study compared to the US and the UK, which I was aware of but sometimes we are obviously talking at tangents because of it. For example English in the UK at degree level would not attract people who don't know what they want to do because they would not voluntary opt for three years extra study if they didn't have a care to do so, any more than any other subject. Even so people still turn up without having read the book or easily get bored after ten pages and blame the tutor and all of that nonsense. Even so English is not a "soft" subject in the UK at degree level, any more than anything else.

[Veho]

Yes but I wasn't taking about the US system, which incidentally sounds a little easy to pass based on what you are saying here: skipping the allowed three classes? Pulling A's by sort of showing up? Not that hard or time consuming? Is this 16-18 year study? This would be equivalent to A-level study in the UK if so.

The breakdown in the UK is as follows: 14-16 GCSE (in secondary school), 16-18 A-Levels (college), 18-21 Degree (University). That is standard, extra options include: 21+ Major, University (one year study), 22+ Phd (Dr) Independent study, which is the highest level achievable, (three years). Actually the only compulsory study is GCSE, you can leave at sixteen with little knowledge of anything if you so choose.

There is obviously a big discrepancy of study compared to the US and the UK, which I was aware of but sometimes we are obviously talking at tangents because of it. For example English in the UK at degree level would not attract people who don't know what they want to do because they would not voluntary opt for three years extra study if they didn't have a care to do so, any more than any other subject. Even so people still turn up without having read the book or easily get bored after ten pages and blame the tutor and all of that nonsense. Even so English is not a "soft" subject in the UK at degree level, any more than anything else.

There are some who do go to university not really knowing what career they want to follow, but I doubt that they would choose to study English Literature, as it is very focused - maybe they would choose English language but not literature. I know someone who chose his degree based on the number of females that were intending on taking that subject and so he ended up studying business studies. I guess he's a minority though (hopefully) and I do agree with all you said.

[Drkshadow03]

Yes but I wasn't taking about the US system, which incidentally sounds a little easy to pass based on what you are saying here: skipping the allowed three classes? Pulling A's by sort of showing up? Not that hard or time consuming? Is this 16-18 year study? This would be equivalent to A-level study in the UK if so.

The breakdown in the UK is as follows: 14-16 GCSE (in secondary school), 16-18 A-Levels (college), 18-21 Degree (University). That is standard, extra options include: 21+ Major, University (one year study), 22+ Phd (Dr) Independent study, which is the highest level achievable, (three years). Actually the only compulsory study is GCSE, you can leave at sixteen with little knowledge of anything if you so choose.

There is obviously a big discrepancy of study compared to the US and the UK, which I was aware of but sometimes we are obviously talking at tangents because of it. For example English in the UK at degree level would not attract people who don't know what they want to do because they would not voluntary opt for three years extra study if they didn't have a care to do so, any more than any other subject. Even so people still turn up without having read the book or easily get bored after ten pages and blame the tutor and all of that nonsense. Even so English is not a "soft" subject in the UK at degree level, any more than anything else.

Your system is a little different. In the U.S. High school is 15 - 18, undergrad (college/university) is 18 - 22 (assuming you do it in the normal 4 years), and then Masters is 2 years, and Ph. D. is 3 years of coursework ending in Comp Exams then a 1 year dissertation (on average, some people take much longer). So if you go on for your Ph. D straight through without stopping from going to school and assuming you finish up your dissertation and coursework in the quickest time possible, then you'd earn it around the age of 28 years old. On average, you'd probably finish somewhere between 28 years old to 30 years old, meaning for a Ph. D you studied literature at the university for approximately 10 years of your life, if not longer.

For an undergrad curriculum you have to take about 12 - 15 ENG courses including Gen Ed English courses (which everyone is required to take). I am not sure what the number is because right now I am looking at my own transcript and I have 15 ENG courses. I think I took a couple of extra in my open electives spot.

English courses can take two forms in general: lecture-oriented (in the papers or midterms the professor usually wants you to regurgitate their lectures back at them) or discussion-oriented (which is basically an open discussion of interpretations and characteristics of the work with guidance from the professor). Sometimes you'll have a combination where they begin lecturing for a half hour and then want the students to discuss their interpretations of the work. But really you get graded through your papers and your discussion (class participation). So all you basically have to do is show up, read the assigned works, participate in the discussion by saying a few intelligent things and asking good questions, and write decent papers. We read about 6 - 8 books per a 14 week semester (usually we spent two weeks a book) for 1 hour 45 min lectures twice a week, 2 short essays per class, and 1 midterm and final, and one long research essay per a class of about 10 pages on average.

There were standards, though. Believe me everyone wasn't getting "A"s for just showing up. I also know plenty of people who take the same classes I did and thought they were pretty hard, but I remember breezing by undergrad and finding it pretty easy. Don't get me wrong, I learned plenty, but it was still pretty easy.

Grad school was more intense. 8 - 10 books per a 14 week semester (usually one week a book), 8 - 10 mini five page papers for every book, a midterm that usually consists of extending one of those papers to around 10 pages and researching an annotated bibliography, a presentation on one book where you basically lead the class in discussion as the 2nd professor (so to speak) and you better damn well have done some research, and usually two to three assigned additional essays and readings to go with the main reading. And if you were smart, you would spend time doing additional research in the library stacks in order to better engage with the discussion. Much more intense.

[sixsmith]

I want to study English Literature at university next year but have heard horror stories from people who complain that studing literature made them lose the love of reading. Could anyone studying English literature please tell me how the experience has affected thier reading habits, thankyou.

Your location is Australia. Are you going to be studying in Australia and, if so, where?

[kasie]

......So you read C.P.Snow in revolt, because no critic rates C.P. Snow.....Note, unlike the English student who was reduced to reading C.P.Snow after the trauma of going through forced reading of the classics, I read the acknowledged classics "for fun" ... And I've never taken a University class in any classics. So maybe it's the way students are taught?

I think you may have misunderstood, mal - it was not a trauma to be 'forced' to read the classics, nor indeed was I forced to do so - I chose the course knowing the work load - but it was exhausting and I needed time to recover and get hold of my life again after the spell spent in the rarified atmosphere of an ivory tower.

I think I had rather gathered that you are reading through a recommended books list on your own account - that's a noble enterprise and I hope you continue to enjoy doing so. Please bear in mind however that it is a different proposition reading, say, The Brothers Karamatzov for pleasure and reading it at the same time as preparing for a seminar on it, possibly writing a short essay on it or maybe researching a longer essay on it, at the same time knowing that by next week you will have to have read a Conrad, and the next week a James, and the next week a Lawrence, all with the same sort of work load, not to mention a parallel subject with a similar work load. (See Neely's post on the structure of the British education system.)

And I think you misinterpret if you think I was 'reduced' to reading Snow :)- just because Bloom does not rate him as a writer does not mean he is completely without value, if I may make so bold as to voice my own small assessment. Possibly an American reader would not appreciate how much he caught the flavour of the times in Britain that he was writing about, the times in which I was growing up for the latter books in the Strangers and Brothers series. I see him as a successor to writers such as Wells, Galsworthy and Bennett, even Maugham, writers of realism and social commentary who have been out of fashion ever since Virginia Woolf wrote somewhat dismissively of them in the thirties because they adhered to an older tradition of narrative. I agree that his works do not have the depth of the Great Writers (it was only recently I realised how much I had been trained to be a Leavisite critic!) but they are well-crafted with believable characters and coherent plot-lines; the crises are treated with compassion and insight and as such they make enjoyable reading. His works are an example of the kind of writing I rediscovered after the period of intensity in the company of the Greats, an opportunity to slow down and see what else was going on in the (literary) world as well as an opportunity to flex my newly acquired critical abilities and make decisions about the value of a book without the judgement of someone else who had deemed it 'worthy' - of a place on a course list or a Canon. Sooner or later I had to let go of the guiding hand and strike out into the Library for myself.

Sorry, OP - this has deviated somewhat from your original question!

[LitNetIsGreat]

There are some who do go to university not really knowing what career they want to follow, but I doubt that they would choose to study English Literature, as it is very focused - maybe they would choose English language but not literature. I know someone who chose his degree based on the number of females that were intending on taking that subject and so he ended up studying business studies. I guess he's a minority though (hopefully) and I do agree with all you said.

Oh yes plenty go to university not really knowing their career path, or only having a vague impression, but it is as you say, unlikely that they would commit to three years intensive reading just for the hell of it.

Personally, I still don't know exactly where I will properly end up, though I fear I will be teaching to some degree...

In the end though I actually quite applaud people who study out of passion for the subject alone, study for the joy of knowledge and to hell with everything else. It might not be practical or sensible or the way to "get ahead" but it is damn fun even so, and even is a tad noble if I may be so bold to say so, or perhaps I'm just a silly old romantic? :santasmil

[kelby_lake]

I think there are quite a few people who do English because they were good at it at school or some nonsense. And it's also a 'respectable' subject to do.

[wessexgirl]

I think there are quite a few people who do English because they were good at it at school or some nonsense. And it's also a 'respectable' subject to do.

What do you mean? Why wouldn't they do it if they were good at it? Would you elect to do a university degree at a subject you weren't good at? That would be nonsense. And I really don't like this attitude of dismissing English as an easy option. It most certainly is not. The amount of reading alone means you have to be dedicated, focussed, articulate and literate. There are many other subjects where you seem to be able to get away without that last virtue in particular. Perhaps that's why it's seen as a "respectable" subject to do. It requires some semblance of being disciplined, and being coherent, enough to be understood. Perhaps just showing up for a class outside of the UK is acceptable, but anyone doing that here would be on the road to getting a bad degree, or even failing, so would hardly want to land themselves with the huge amount of debt they get now for nothing.

[mal4mac]

And I think you misinterpret if you think I was 'reduced' to reading Snow :)- just because Bloom does not rate him as a writer does not mean he is completely without value, if I may make so bold as to voice my own small assessment.

On C.P. Snow - I'm British and a scientist by training and read a novel or two by him some decades ago. Just didn't like his work at all, compare him to Dickens for instance! (OK that's harsh. Kingsley Amis, say...) Maybe, being a scientist, and him being the only modern UK writer writing seriously about scientists, I thought he would be "really great". So perhaps I over-reacted against him when I found he wasn't.

I re-read his "two cultures essay" last month, and was not impressed. Great title, but the essay was a let down.

Good point on the benefits of reading a lighter author for relaxation. I recently read Treasure Island between Cervantes and Shakespeare, I needed the rest...

[Drkshadow03]

It requires some semblance of being disciplined, and being coherent, enough to be understood.

Heh. You obviously haven't been reading a lot of contemporary criticism or literary theory if you're using terms like "coherent." ;)


Perhaps just showing up for a class outside of the UK is acceptable, but anyone doing that here would be on the road to getting a bad degree, or even failing, so would hardly want to land themselves with the huge amount of debt they get now for nothing.

Instead of playing the British education/Canadian education/Japanese education system is better than the U.S. game. I would be interested if one of you could describe in detail your coursework, what a typical course consists of in study and breadth, etc.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Instead of playing the British education/Canadian education/Japanese education system is better than the U.S. game. I would be interested if one of you could describe in detail your coursework, what a typical course consists of in study and breadth, etc.

Absolutely, I wasn't suggesting that one was better than the other, but just different. I would be glad to give details of my sort of course, but mine is part-time and a little different to a "typical" full-time degree. Nevertheless I would be glad to give a few details, but I'm just off out at the moment...I had forgotten that I had promised to go for a few birthday drinks with a cousin!

[kelby_lake]

What do you mean? Why wouldn't they do it if they were good at it? Would you elect to do a university degree at a subject you weren't good at? That would be nonsense. And I really don't like this attitude of dismissing English as an easy option. It most certainly is not. The amount of reading alone means you have to be dedicated, focussed, articulate and literate. There are many other subjects where you seem to be able to get away without that last virtue in particular. Perhaps that's why it's seen as a "respectable" subject to do.

I'm talking about the people who feel they ought to go to university, the people with the money to do a non-vocational degree and they do English because they want to look good.

Of course it isn't easy.The only reason someone might look down on it is becase you don't need an English degree- you get one because you want one.

[mono]

Back to the original poster, I applaud you for studying literature, and even more so for studying it as an area of interest and passion, rather than choosing it as something, as rumor has spread on this thread, "something that will get you by" to get a degree. I considered studying literature and creative writing far from easy; upon specific works of literature, yes, I admit, the study subtracted some of my interest, particularly in some authors, certain genres of literature, etc., but in terms of literature as a whole? No, I lost no interest; there always will exist some writer in the dusty ether of a library to restore some "general" interest, but a literature major who loses general interest in the subject after/during studying it sounds more like a sell-out than anything else, much like if turned my back on the whole of mathematics just because I did not like trigonometry.
The compulsory parts of studying literature, yes, can get very tiresome, and one's eyes can focus only with so much enthusiasm while reading something more out of obligation than enjoyment in order only to regurgitate some quotes, character analyses, plot synopses, etc., likely to dissipate more swiftly than they got there. Certainly, I will admit that I studied specific subjects/authors/books with no conviction, and I saw that the lack of passion for those subjects/authors/books subtracted a bit from my GPA; I never failed, but admittedly "gave them a little less oomph!" (*shudders while recalling the long, tedious hours of studying Gertrude Buck*)
Despite what anyone says, as structured yet perplexing literature seems, it does not prove a science, not even the bases of grammar or dialectic. Science consists of theories, but relies upon empirical, measurable, specific evidence, while the complexities literature, as an art, topics like criticism included, consist entirely of theories, upon which gives us the Mad Libs-like structure of analysis and rhetoric. Does this make literature any easier to study than science or mathematics? No, just a different way of thinking. These individuals who claim they have "lost their interest" in literature after studying the subject have failed to recognize the art of literature, subsequently considering the area of study as concrete, impersonal, and objective as science or mathematics (and I say this even as someone with an applied science degree). Professors and scholars can babble out their arses about iambs, metonymies, and allusions, and I will not discredit such study, but one cannot measure the artistic qualities of literature that has made it great.

[Haunted]

k.brignell, this is my story to share with you. I loved books and couldn't stop reading. I read into the wee hours of morning. I would bring a book to read during biology classes and nearly flunked all my science subjects. At college I studied more literature, then in grad school I studied some more. Literature and psychology. Literature and philosophy. Literature and law. Literature and the culture of deconstruction. Literature this and that. After I graduated I got a job in publishing. Five months later I quit. It was then that I realized I couldn't read another book (plus the authors are so full of themselves it really turned me off). I was totally saturated.

After that I couldn't even read the newspaper. I eased back into reading by looking up the TV Guide. When there's a book that sounds interesting, I'd wait for the movie. If there's no movie, I'd go read the very very very short version on wikipedia.

Now I go for mostly nonfiction, and strangely, I'm drawn to the science categories. It is as though my mind is over-compensating...

So the moral of the story is...there is none. Follow your literary pursuits. Just don't do what I did.

[blazeofglory]

I'm going into my final year of studying English Lit at University and although there have been times when I have been so frustrated and bored by certain works, I have been introduced to some literature that I would never have picked myself and that I actually enjoyed/appreciated. It's definitely increased my love of litearture because I have been able to study works that I previously wouldn't have even looked at.

Of course reading pieces of literature is really entertaining and refreshing and particularly when someone at university explains to you it is really thrilling.

I recall a day when I study Milton and the way our professor explained Paradise Lost by Milton.

I have read Shakespeare too and during those days Shakespeare was very difficult but I had a great passion to understand him.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I would be interested if one of you could describe in detail your coursework, what a typical course consists of in study and breadth, etc.

OK, so generally all school students have to do GCSEs (General Certificate of Secondary Education) these are very basic "general" level courses for students aged 14-16. On average students take between 9-11 subjects, many of them core such as English Literature and Language, Maths, Science, IT etc, though with a few choices such as Languages, Art etc, Languages is not generally core. The grading for these subjects range from coursework to exams with a little cursory oral work, but most of the weight comes from exams. All students have to take GCSEs and 16 is currently the minimum age you can leave education, though it is being extended to 18 shortly. Students take GCSEs at secondary school.

The step up from here is A-Levels, 16-18. These are notably harder than GCSEs and for many the step up can be a shock. In order to qualify to study A-Levels you generally have to gain at least 5 C grades including English and Maths, but it all depends upon the particular course and institution you are studying at. Gaining 5 C grades is not all that difficult and the government targets that 50% of the population should be able to achieve this score. Students doing A-Levels take between 3-4 subjects which have greater depth than the GCSE courses. For example you may take English Language and Literature, History and Philosophy, if you wanted to study Literature at university. Testing is mostly exams, coursework and oral examination.

From there is university. Qualification to university is very wide ranging, there are universities and courses that you can qualify with a couple of E grades, whereas there are others which require A grades across the board, it all depends. The best universities require good grades, I am pretty sure Sheffield for instance requires at least 3 A grades for English study, though I am sure there are other subjects that require less. (Actually looking it is 2 As and 1 B).

So university study is degree level BA degree (Bachelor of Arts) this is a three year study of one subject or a duel subject. Here is a brief description of the English Literature course at Sheffield:


http://www.shef.ac.uk/prospectus/courseDetails.do?id=3774502010
'English' here means writing in English from all over the world, including American, Afro-American, Irish, Scottish, and postcolonial literature from, for instance, India and Africa. You will study literature and its cultural and historical contexts from the Renaissance up to the twenty-first century. You can also take courses from the School's two other departments.

The English Literature programme offers a wide range of related courses, including literary theory, drama, film and creative writing. A chronological spine of courses throughout your three years is combined with optional, more specialized courses (approved modules). By the time you graduate, you will have a thorough knowledge of the history of literature, as well as the ability to interpret and compose different kinds of literary and academic writing.

Of five level one modules, two are compulsory: Introduction to Advanced Literary Studies (IALS) and Shakespeare and Renaissance Drama. IALS is designed to make you rethink the study of poetry, narrative, drama, film and literary theory. Shakespeare and Renaissance Drama - first of the chronological modules - considers the dynamic period of Shakespeare. We also offer an exciting range of diverse optional modules, including in film and theatre. 



At levels two and three, the chronological survey continues over five modules. There are also modules dedicated to literary theory. Additionally, a wide range of optional modules is available. These may focus on a single author, genre or theme, a literary movement, or on practical drama or film. Most reflect their tutors' research interests, such as Henry James, Irish literature, the gay novel, twentieth-century poetry, working-class writing, the Holocaust or Shakespeare on screen.

All students have the opportunity for a period of study abroad, either in the USA or in Europe or at any other university with which Sheffield has an exchange arrangement.

Typical modules
http://www.shef.ac.uk/prospectus/courseDetails.do?id=3774502010

Study is for three years with 120 credits per year. The first year is mostly intended to lay the foundation, to bridge the gap between A-Level and degree study and grades don't count towards your final grade, it's pass or fail. The next two years are much harder and at greater depth than the first year. Assessment consists of essays, exams, presentations, reports etc, but the main weight generally comes from essays. You also have to produce a 10-12 thousand word dissertation. From here you can leave at 21 with a degree. Grading is a 1 (or a first) 2:1, 2;2, 3 class degrees or a fail.

Most people don't study any further than that, but the standard options for those wishing to go further in humanities is a MA (Master of Arts) which is generally a one year course consisting of essays and another dissertation.

After that the further option of gaining a Phd is independent research for three years. So the youngest you could achieve a doctorate in Literature is 25.

That's a general framework of study and not really answering your question about the particular details of coursework, which I will do later.

[k.brignell]

Wow, I did not expect my simple question to spark such intense discussion. Thankyou to all for you input. I am an avid reader as I am sure everyone is this forum is and read mostly classics and only popular fiction when it comes highly recomended. I idealy want to go into publishing and write my own novels in the future.

After reading everyones posts I still really want to study english literature, so I guess I should just go for it right. There is nothing else in the world that brings me the same joy and satisfaction then reading, so uni shouldn't alter this other then possibly making me feel slightly overwhelmed for a short period.

Sixsmith, I am originally from London but moved to Australia two and a half years ago. I live in south east Queensland, and will study at University of Queensland. I have looked at the degree online and it seems to have a good balance of both classics and contemporary literature. The system here is similar to the Americans whereby I will do a bach of arts majoring in English literature and my minor will be either classics or french.

[kelby_lake]

Studying anything intensely is bound to make you question at times whether it's worth it, so don't worry :)

[mal4mac]

"Having, he claims, scrupulously avoided reading any of the course material (but having read widely otherwise in English and foreign literature), James graduated with a 2:1"

- from Clive James' Wikipedia page...

[LitNetIsGreat]

Cont...

In order to gain credits most classes are either 10 to 20 credit modules and you need 120 credits per year (or 60 in my case). Generally speaking you would have to do equivalent to about a 3000 word essay per 10 credits and 2 x 3000 words + something extra like an oral presentation or exam per 20 credits. It completely depends upon the module.

For one of my 20 credit classes last year (level 3) I had to write one 1500 word essay (20%), one exam with two questions: seen and unseen (30%), one presentation and interview which was filmed (30%) and a 1000 word reflection on the presentation (20%), but for another 20 credit module I just had 2 X 2000 word essays to do. The overall degree will ensure that there has been a balance of essays, exams, presentations etc, throughout, and the dissertation is usually worth about 40 credits in total.

I hope that has answered some of your queries.

[David R]

Hey, good topic.

When I first went to University I was hungry for knowledge - I had read a great deal but hadn't studied any of it. The first two years were a joy, I was getting exactly what I wanted - the mental discipline of studying books, both primary and secondary, and writing essays. However my third and final year wasn't such an easy ride because I think I missed having the freedom to read what I want and when I wanted and I wanted to apply my new found skills of critical analysis to these books. I suppose you could say that the joy of reading left we for a while there in the final year. When I finished I read mostly light books for a while, just to take a break but soon I was back reading the 'Classics' again and using the skills I had learned in college - active reading and clear, conscise writing. Attending University has changed me, I get so much more satisfaction out of reading and feel that I am living a life of the mind. As Socrates said: the unreflected life is not worth living.

That's my story. Hope it was helpful.

[mal4mac]

I idealy want to go into publishing and write my own novels in the future.

After reading everyones posts I still really want to study english literature, so I guess I should just go for it right. There is nothing else in the world that brings me the same joy and satisfaction then reading, so uni shouldn't alter this other then possibly making me feel slightly overwhelmed for a short period.

I did a physics degree but always liked reading & writing so made "publishing" my fallback position. I actually got a job in scientific publishing, but turned it down 'cause I got the grades to get paid to do research...

So if you wan to get a job in publishing it might be better to take a specialist degree, do some writing on the side, and then go into publishing in the field that you specialise in. For instance, at university I worked for the student newspaper. That immediately made me stand out from the crowd -- how many physics students work for the student newspaper? (And it was hardly a crowd anyway! How many physics students go into publishing. Many "science journalists" didn't study science...)

I'm not sure if an English Literatiue degree is best for one wanting to write novels. A quick wikipedia trawl soon reveals this:

Shakespeare didn't go to Uni.

Dickens didn't go to Uni, David Copperfield: "I had no advice, no counsel, no encouragement, no consolation, no assistance, no support, of any kind, from anyone, that I can call to mind..."

Tolstoy - he began studying law and oriental languages at Kazan University. His teachers described him as "both unable and unwilling to learn." Tolstoy left university in the middle of his studies...

Dostoevsky - At the Saint Petersburg Academy of Military Engineering, Dostoyevsky was taught mathematics, a subject he despised...

Shelley: "Legend has it that Shelley attended only one lecture while at Oxford, but frequently read sixteen hours a day. By all accounts, he was unpopular with both students and dons."

Goethe: "Goethe studied law in Leipzig from 1765 to 1768. Learning age-old judicial rules by heart was something he strongly detested. He preferred to attend the poetry lessons of Christian Fürchtegott Gellert..."

Dante: "Not much is known about Dante's education, and it is presumed he studied at home..."

Thomas Hardy - "a family of Hardy's social position lacked the means for a university education, and his formal education ended at the age of 16 when he became apprenticed to John Hicks, a local architect."

I'd read Haunted's post again, carefully! He wasn't "slightly overwhelmed for a short period". His interest in literature was destroyed and his life upended. A few bad courses, or a bad job, can do that to you. The same happened to me, my lifetime interest in astronomy was destroyed by taking a really bad astrophysics course. My position became the opposite of Haunted's. I stopped reading mostly Popular Science for recreation, and started reading classic novels! (I recovered "some" interest in Astronomy after a decade or so...)

[LitNetIsGreat]

I don't think that is good advice Mac, if I'm honest. If someone really wants to study English Literature, as the OP says, then I think go for it all the way, I don't see the point in studying something else for the sake of it. If you are going to be studying a subject for at least three years then some sort of interest, if not a deep passion for it is clearly called for. It's true that you don't need to study literature to write, but it sure can't hurt, and you are guaranteed to get a deeper understanding of literature by actually studying it, as opposed to studying some random subject.

[mal4mac]

I don't think that is good advice Mac, if I'm honest. If someone really wants to study English Literature, as the OP says, then I think go for it all the way, I don't see the point in studying something else for the sake of it.

If all you really like at school is studying English Literature, and nothing outside school really inspires you except for reading literature, then it's the only choice.

But university literature courses *may* be very different from school courses, or reading novels at home. If you find the courses a pain then you may, like Tolstoy, drop out, or, like more ordinary mortals, struggle on to get that piece of paper. Can you do that while retaining your love of literature?

[LitNetIsGreat]

If all you really like at school is studying English Literature, and nothing outside school really inspires you except for reading literature, then it's the only choice.

But university literature courses *may* be very different from school courses, or reading novels at home. If you find the courses a pain then you may, like Tolstoy, drop out, or, like more ordinary mortals, struggle on to get that piece of paper. Can you do that while retaining your love of literature?

But the OP is wanting to study an university course, not a school course. If you have any degree of backbone then you will be able retain your passion for literature while studying the degree.

Edit: Besides in regards to Shakespeare, Shelley, Dickens and even Hardy, English Literature as a subject didn't even exist, or barely for the likes of Hardy. The first time English was taught as a degree subject was 1826 but this in no way resembled English Literature as we know it today. Perhaps the first time this was taught to what we would regard as literature is the 1920's with the input of Richards, Empson and Leavis. English was not even offered as a subject in Oxford until 1894 and Cambridge 1911! The Oxford of Shelley's age would have offered little but Latin, Greek and Theology with no study of literature besides what he could do in his "spare" time. Legend has it that he was indeed a voracious reader - he was disliked due to his "poetic" feminine nature, his dislike of sports and his refusal to fag. He was kicked out for writing pamphlets of a religious nature, though Oxford itself would have done little to help him write poetry at that time.

Even so, trying to argue that there is little point in studying literature at university, because many people have become great writers without it, is the same as arguing that many people have made it as successful business people without any qualifications at all. Even as this is true, it is hardly a recommendation for everybody to drop out of school at 14 with nothing at all is it?

In the end though, it is not up to us, we can blabber all day and night, in the end it is up to the OP Miss Brignell, and I trust she will make the right decision for herself.

[Mockingbird_z]

I study Russian and English literature along with world literature (rather superficial course) and I can say that sometimes I have to skip many of books enlisted in a must-read list that our teachers give us. But my interest to reading and literature incresed. I read the books I would have never picked up myself.

[kelby_lake]

Unfortunately AS exams have worked against me and I don't have much chance of getting into a decent uni to do English but I appreciate the chance to collectively and individually analyse literature. If you enjoy reading, read books.

You've got to think about how much use the degree will be to you. No one has to go to university and you don't just go because you like reading.

[susan_p]

If you're going to go ahead with it, I would strongly suggest that you make it a point to read for fun and to relax, outside of your assigned reading and studies. I mean don't let school get you burned out on Lit.