I disagree. As you can tell by my poorly written posts, clearly the effects do not transfer. Narrative writing and the like is about creating effects and reactions in the reading and communicating stuff through a greater significance, whereas technical writing has to be to the point. Great fiction writers write garbage essays all the time, because the styles are a different type of communication.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
The ability to recognize recurring motifs, find abstract ideas expressed in a specific story, understand how different periods of intellectual history are expressed in the constantly changing styles of literature are all beneficial to one's intelligence. These are the benefits of reading literature critically; but the active reader can make more out of it.
Creative writing is very different from technical writing. I would not necessarily argue it is only concerned with creating reactions in the reader; although it uses words, it paradoxically expresses that which words cannot express.
P.S
obvious troll ...
I personally believe that it is absolutely necessary to teach literature, and history of art, and philosophy, foreign languages, and a few of the other alike subjects, which are commonly viewed to be "unimportant" or "futile". Perhaps they are futile, in a way that one cannot profit economically out of some general knowledge on them; but those subjects precisely are that which is going to make you noble, in sense, raise you to the level higher than of a humanoid machine which owns solely that little technical knowledge which was taught, with limited view and feel of a world.
Some things or subjects are not meant purely to be utile economically, or to look cool on curriculum vitae, or to present precise knowledge - some things are meant to educate in one larger sense, to a point of being able to say that they raise more than just serve as utile knowledge. Even if you are not going to deal with them professionally, they are meant to be here to open some gates and some doors of perception to you - as well as to bring you to the level of well-educated citizen of your country, as a lot of material covered in those lessons consists of general cultural knowledge which one later in life feels ashamed of not knowing and not being able to recognise.
Just as children should be able to think scientifically and be given such perspective of the world, they should not be deprived of artistic one; for let us not forget one thing. On the anorganic level, it is about atoms; on the organic level, it is about cells; but on the level beyond, it is about signs. Whole of the culture - language, art - is made up of signs.
And guess what? Only humans have it. As a matter of fact, you could argue that that is precisely what makes us different than animals; another reason why, if something, it should be encouraged more in schools.
Critical thinking is necessary to keep the values of truth, honor, duty and beauty alive in the world. No amount of technical knowledge can cultivate this knowledge. One sonnet by someone like John Donne holds more truth and understanding of life and death than all the technical manuals, books and booklets. Our world would, definitely, be the poorer and worse off without critical thinking and what better way to teach our young how to think critically than exposing them to the reflection of culture, life and truth in the form of literature.
I included the word "fundamentally" in my comment with great deliberation. I agree that the styles are very different, but the general content, information, and the medium, writing, are the same. Whether one is writing an instruction manual or a novel, the writer must provide the information in the order and degree of detail that is necessary for the reader to understand what is being conveyed. Great fiction writers write great essays; mediocre writers of fiction are probably the ones who wrote the "garbage essays" that you mentioned. Great, and even just good, writers of fiction can change their styles to account for the requirements of different kinds of writing. Consider Umberto Eco, who has written great works of fiction, non-fiction, humor, and other. Swift wrote in different styles to reflect what he wrote about. We don't have any of Shakespeare's writing other than plays and sonnets, but he probably could switch into other styles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watershed
As a student of both science and literature, I must strongly disagree. To say literature offers nothing to those outside of academia is an absurdity. Show me someone who is successful in business, mathematics, engineering, etc. who has not studied literature. Whether they liked it or not is irrelevant. Reading and writing about literature is essential to ensuring students are developing the skills in writing, and speaking, that are needed in all fields of the workforce. In addition to this, what is more important than the written word? It is the only way we can communicate our experiences to others through time. If literature is not stressed as an important subject, we run the risk of forgetting what makes us human.
Oh yes, it is!
Literature education really opened to me a new world...I feel I'll never thank my teachers enough for introducing me to literature (both Italian, and that of the other languages I study in Highschool)in the way they did it!
As someone here has already said, it "opens" your mind, in the sense that it really makes you think of things you wouldn't even consider otherwise....I mean, it enriches you humanely and emotionally!!
Moreover, " all the subjects you study at school won't serve you in practical life" as my philosophy teacher would say, probably adding "don't behave like vispe terese!":nod:
Knowledge of literature may not be required at your working place, but surely it'll mean much to you, because knowledge of literature is knowledge of mankind, knowledge of human thought. It provides you with a means by which you can dig into yourself and others...
is this really a serious question? just put some kid who read in middle school/high school on their own accord next to someone who watched MTV every afternoon. That should be enough of a scientific study to show how important literature education is. I took all the advanced lit. classes in high school and am only now starting to appreciate the works and take more of an interest in the tremendous wealth of great stuff out there. But without the exposure to it initially, I don't think the interest would be there. God help us if we only teach kids what is deemed "necessary." Look how art and music are being taken out of schools.
The wonderful thing about literature, is the incorporation of all that is essential to the study of the English language with the study of texts- the ultimate application and exploration of words in human society.
Literature is everything- it is philosophy,science,psychology,English, history, cultural studies, it is the world through writing.
Literature allows you to read and write while learning why these things are so important and beautiful.
Even the kids who failed my lit class and want to go into an entirely different profession loved lit. Where as those who just studied English tended to be a lot less passionate and excited about the subject.
Literature as a high school class changed my life. In my opinion, the study of literature is the height of intellectual expansion.
'nuff said? :)
I agree that a passion for literature may bring forth more educated and productive members of society, But not only in that aspect. I don't believe that this is a "utilitarian" society at all. Our educational system surely has it's weaknesses and flaws but students are only given a general education in hopes that some of what they learned would be usefull in the future regardless of their career choices. If we focused more on literature and took away from the other ciriculums wouldn't we be creating a utilitarian society based on the knowledge of literature?
I admire your courage, because even though users of this forum are very open-minded, this has to be the toughest crowd you could preach this idea to :p
I'll try to present yet a further argument in favour of teaching literature in school; if it has already been presented, my apologies, I must have overlooked it.
I read very little besides comics until I came to the age of 15, maybe 16. Then, because I chose Humanities, I had to read a couple of portuguese and english classics, and now I'm a literature fiend. It's a very good idea to be exposed to all kinds of subjects at an early stage, including literature, so that you can find your true vocation.
i've heard that question before. :) personally though i really can;t answer that question. the only thing i can say about it is that literature is a pretty good mirror of what society was like at the time it was written, and thus reading it would help us appreciate our past.
:) a little addition--i was once saying to someone that i hoped to be someone as big as shakespeare, and he told me that he'd hate me for it, because i'd be the cause of the failing literature grades of his descendants :)
I think there's something to that. I mean, take Orwell as an example, he always was really more of a journalist/essayist, that's how he started out, and even when he wrote novels it still had more the feel of an essay. Don't get me wrong, I've read all his novels and I do think he was a very good novellist (Coming Up for Air perhaps being the one exception), but he wasn't as concerned with the actual language in the way that a real literary novelist, for example Hemingway, would be. In Orwell's case language was used to convey meaning, not to celebrate its own beauty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watershed
I do agree, however, that studying literature improves your analytical skills. This was made overwhelmingly clear to me after my first few lessons with my 9th grade English teacher, who clearly had a passion for the subject and had a way of analyzing a book which no previous teacher I'd had possessed. He was the one person in my life who got me interested in literature and for that I owe him a lot, and being (not to brag) probably one of the brightest and most genuinely interested students he's had we formed quite a close bond. Needless to say, I wouldn't have given up that education for anything, and my life has become extremely enriched by it - never mind that whatever job I may go on to have will have nothing to do with literature, or even that I'm not now doing a degree in it (though I'm still an avid reader and, having talked to some of the people over here doing literature degrees, much more knowledgeable about it than many of them). But back to what I was talking about, I definitely think that studying literature has made me a much more perceptive and intelligent person, as well as exponentially increasing my capacity to express myself. Really, just show me anyone who is well-spoken and eloquent and I'll show you someone who will have done a fair bit of reading. I'm not necessarily referring to the classics or Ulysses but just reading in general (obviously going beyond just The Da Vinci Code).
Also, but this is just my personal preference, I believe that a condition of employment of every English teacher should be a little gleam of insanity in the eyes.
You're overlooking the very important fact that History, the Social Sciences, and the other "myriad of fields" (especially ones in government and journalistic work) can all be improved, indeed can almost be taught completely, using Literature for a base. The saving grace of Literature is that it encompasses all of the fields you've just jotted down, and then some.Quote:
But, still, I do feel that perhaps the importance of literature from a compulsory academic point of view is times over-estimated. Whereas history, the other great social science, aids one in a myriad of fields, especially ones in government and journalistic work, literature still is not really necessary to learn about except to teach it or study it. Publishing and creative writing both can be pursued through other much more lucrative fields, such as English language and business.
I believe that if people were not cultured in Literature, then the other subjects would suffer a stifling and uncreative existence.
My experiences with literature in secondary education aren't too good, in fact I'm sure many people in my class have been scared away from further occupation with literature because of which and especially how literature was taught. Even though I have been an avid reader during those years (reading high literature, not trash) I was never able to find any interest or even pleasure in those lessons.
But still I think teaching literature is ultimately necessary, since - let's face it - many, if not most students will never return to it after school again. The literature curricula in schools create the body of what we call canon - those works of which knowlegde is assumed amongst almost every social circle; and sooner or later people will feel ashamed for not knowing and not being able to recognise those works.
Reading literature is certainly enriching me, both intellectually and emotionally, and gives me access to many things I could not experience in any other way. Although my teachers have failed to enthuse me for literary criticism they still have given me a solid overview about the different literary periods and the most known (national) authors, a foundation on which I can pursue further studies on my own.