Garbage that they teach you in AP classes

I am starting to get sick of my AP class. My teacher is referring to everything as a symbol. The character can be opening a door and the door becomes a symbol of this or a symbol of that. Not everything is meant to represent an idea.

Consider the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. It's a work of children's literature. But my AP teacher tried to portray it as some deep allegory where the river represents freedom. Come on, that's like saying the police station in a detective novel represents security.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Even though English is my absolute favourite subject at school it is almost my most painful, so I feel your pain. Unlike you I am lucky enough to have a truly wise, knowledgable and passionate teacher, and the curriculum in New South Wales high schools are good. Its my fellow students that infuriate me.
Only perhaps four students in the entire class of 30 actually understand and value literature, the rest are there for the sake of it, or so they can get into some university course, or because it looks good on their certificate.
They cram and study Shakespeare, or notes on Miller (just recently), not because they love those texts, or have been swept by the magic of literature, but because "if we don't get good marks...it won't be good." None of them will remember what they studied when they go into the world, and therefore it was all a waste of time. Argh! Maybe I'm some Nazi literature fundamentalist. Maybe thats why I like coming here.

I think that the reason why the teachers mention so many symbols is because they're there. The only thing is those of use who actually adore these works understand the symbols without having to talk about them. I get frustrated too, because I love the sublty of them and when a class has to disect a passage of literature for the rest of the students, I am left with the scar of the surgery.

It's plainly obvious to us that a river represents freedom or a police station represents safety. I think that we book lovers are impatient to get to the meat of the matter. :-?

I don't know Shea. I really don't thimk that there is meaning in every single thing. It can't be really plausible that these great authors meant for every single thing they describe to have a deep rooted symbol behind them, can it?
I mean, I love books and all, but when I read about a river or a police station, I read about just that. A river and a police station. It's the big picture that matters, not something that is so fundamentally simple.

That pretty much what I'm saying, it's just that a lot of teachers will pick and pry a book apart to reveal the obvious. When I read about a river and a police station, it's on a subliminal level that I recognize the symbolism. Didn't you just naturally feel the river as the path to freedom when you read Huck Finn (if you read it)? Was it necessary for teacher to tell you what the river meant other than that happened to be the way they chose to travel? I hate that I may have to do stuff like that when I begin teaching. :x

I was thinking about the same. Sometime we just see (or we're said) there are symbols, but the thing is, they might not be meant as symbols. If the author isn't alive, no-one can say this is a symbol, this is not. Sometimes river is just a river. But sometimes it's not. Sometimes the author uses a symbol and almost no-one can find the meaning of it. It's the beauty of literature. You read a book and you can find a lot of people who think different about it. And I think it's right that way. Don't you?

Yeah, that's why I'm enjoying this site so much. I never had anyone else do discuss the books that I've read.

it's because the teachers have spent their life studying things some other people wrote about the books and those other people spent their lives analyzing the books. so possibly they found some things that the author didn't even put in the piece. but still, the book is meant to live independently from the author, and everyone should interpret it differently... and the class can help you to realize some things you may have missed reading the book, and after all, you don't have to agree with everything teacher says....... i don't really see the problem.

to robert e lee. if you truly feel that Huckleberry Finn is a children's story than i am afraid you have been admitted ap status under shallow pretenses. as a suggestion, try examining the character traits of the spanish "picaro," and compare them to that of huck. oliver twist will also serve well in this regard

You can see every single creation of men - whether or not presented as an art - as a symbol or allegory for whatever aspect of life you can imagine.

But the context in which the creation is presented usually decides the chance that a person actually sees it as a symbol or allegory.

When you are a teacher that doesn't have anything else to do but to pester unwilling students with pseudo-literature, it isn't hard to believe that one jokes around with unmeant symbolism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shuai

I don't know Shea. I really don't thimk that there is meaning in every single thing. It can't be really plausible that these great authors meant for every single thing they describe to have a deep rooted symbol behind them, can it?
I mean, I love books and all, but when I read about a river or a police station, I read about just that. A river and a police station. It's the big picture that matters, not something that is so fundamentally simple.

---

I agree with this. I don't think authors mean everything in a symbolic way. Sometimes things become symbols unwillingly, i mean it's the authors subconscious... Sometimes critics just go a bit too far and see a meaning behind everything, when instead a river is just a river.


Munro, here in italy people don't choose a literature course, people have literature lessons in the secondary school they choose, wether they want it or not. Same at university, if you choose to study languages or things of that kind, you have literature even if you don't want it. You can imagine the pain of someone that loves literature in the middle of class where people don't give a damn about it and complain because for the exams they actually have to read a book...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shuai

I don't know Shea. I really don't thimk that there is meaning in every single thing. It can't be really plausible that these great authors meant for every single thing they describe to have a deep rooted symbol behind them, can it?
I mean, I love books and all, but when I read about a river or a police station, I read about just that. A river and a police station. It's the big picture that matters, not something that is so fundamentally simple.

---

I agree with this. I don't think authors mean everything in a symbolic way. Sometimes things become symbols unwillingly, i mean it's the authors subconscious... Sometimes critics just go a bit too far and see a meaning behind everything, when instead a river is just a river.


Munro, here in italy people don't choose a literature course, people have literature lessons in the secondary school they choose, wether they want it or not. Same at university, if you choose to study languages or things of that kind, you have literature even if you don't want it. You can imagine the pain of someone that loves literature in the middle of class where people don't give a damn about it and complain because for the exams they actually have to read a book...

---

The people in my class are unenthusiastic, too. They just picked the class for the high school record. It irritates me when they don't read the assigned novel and instead read cliff's notes.

why is that so iritating?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarsMonster

why is that so iritating?

---

It pisses me off when people take the easy way out of things like that. And it's like a slap in the face to the authors.

Indeed. Though i don't care much about the authors...Just taking the easy way usually seems to me a lack of responsibility...

i still don't understand why it bothers you to see people take the easy way out. you don't have to, it's your choice. they want to- it's their choice.

My AP class is pretty perceptive...guess I got lucky. My only gripe is that two student teachers were allowed to use us as their lab rats for weeks at a time...not very fair to the students who took the class for the love of literature and the wish to have a knowledgeable teacher guide us.

Well, we don't have AP courses at my small private school, but I have a great teacher, and several very enthusiastic and thoughtful students (basically, enough to make class interesting.)

In regards to the symbolism thing. I think it is true that many people go to far. The great thing about literature is that people can (to a degree) get different things out of them. (I firmly believe in intent of the author, so I only think that can go so far.)

I think too many symbols are SOOO annoying, but then it is interesting to see different interpretations in a text. HOWEVER - the little exposure I have had to freud has been enough for me to want to give up symbolism in literature forever- he RUINS ALL LITERATURE - ugh!

you're in AP classes. wait til you take IB English. there's a difference between children's books and AP-ish type of books. it seems to me that you have a hard time catching the symbols..i do too, it takes practice. hang in there. you'll learn to like it. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wimpkin

you're in AP classes. wait til you take IB English. there's a difference between children's books and AP-ish type of books. it seems to me that you have a hard time catching the symbols..i do too, it takes practice. hang in there. you'll learn to like it. ;)

---

I tookan IB English course when I went to school in Switzerland. There's really not much of a difference except that the kids aren't as dumb as they are in AP.

I guess I had a different experience than the rest of you. I went to an art school for high school, and my major was literary arts. We were all pretty much of the same interest literarilly (is that a word, I wonder?).

It's whats wrong with education today. The purpose of education was so that you have a good wide knowledge of the world and are reasonably knowledgeable to make it in the wide world when you come of age. Now it is treated as vocation, where kids only do high school courses to get into their university course of choice, so they can get into whatever profession. Their drive to get the best marks possible clouds what they are learning, they never truly enjoy or love what they are learning (which is important) and end up in some ****house office in some dead-end job spending their life making unfulfilling money, having forgotten everything they crammed for in school, and regretting the time they moaned "when the hell will I need farkin' Shakespeare in a job interview?!".
Yer, the symbols thing is hella annoying, which is why I prefer independent reading to studying texts.

Munro, though I'm chiming in a few months late, I must say well said on that last post. I am appalled when my peers joke about the things we are learning in class, are bored during times of deep intellectual learning, and "have fun" when they waste two hour periods doing nothing. While having fun is essential in life, it's a sad thing that they have no clue as to what will happen when they try to pass college courses by slacking off. My opinion on this whole debacle is that there are no elderly figures in these young peoples' lives enstilling in them the importance of an education, and how what happens in high school will influence their lives.

I am in no way saying kids can't be kids; they need to have fun in today's world, but work is important, too. A little more self discipline is needed by students. As a future psychotherapist who would like to work with teens, I pray that I can get this message off to at least one person during my work. I can try now, too, though!

I was disappointed with my AP English class too - I felt like our teacher presented us with these webs of symbols that never made a full connection to anything... I kept waiting for some monumental epiphany and was never satisfied. I think it is partly because not every author consciously uses part of their story to symbolize something. I found myself resenting AP English in the same way I resent certain religions - where somebody gets their hands on a book and draws their own conclusions/interpretations without running it by the author, and then puts it in everyone else's face as a fact.

What I DID enjoy about AP English though was tuning into a lot of the adjectives the author used to set the tone... It was like a more mild version of symbolism, where you gained a better understanding of the type of story that was written, without branching out into irrelevancy.

Great works of literature survive because they cannot be reduced to a single simple "meaning"... a definition... but rather they reward repeated reading. A good teacher can only lead the student to some aspects of a work of literature. Some may focus upon character... others upon the development of the narrative... still others upon formal issues of structure and language. Greater understanding cannot be handed to you on a platter. It only comes with time, effort and experience. Any work of literature changes as we change. Someone who has spent a great deal of time reading will bring to any strong work of literature connections and insights that go beyond those of the casual reader. What's the great Lex Luther quote? "Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe." Certainly not every element in a novel or poem is symbolic of some larger concept... and certainly there are elements in some works of literature which may not have been intended as having some larger symbolic "meaning" but may now be seen that way in light of later works of literature (for as T.S. Eliot correctly noted the strong works of new art influence those of the past... or our interpretation of such... as surely as the works of the past impact the future). Having said this much I find myself agreeing with Tomontes in that I might certainly question anyone's judgment concerning literature who could imagine that Huckleberry Finn was no more than a work of "children's fiction".

I can understand annoyance about symbols being pointed out, and I also agree that sometimes the professors and critics see things as symbols that are not intended as symbols. I also think that most human expression has more than one meaning behind it, and writers frequently create symbols without even noticing. I also have found works of literature in which I see symbols and figures of speech that others don't notice. Writers often insert references to events and people that they know personally without letting the reader know that there is a personal joke, or something, there; these jokes and personal asides are often taken as something with deep meaning that isn't there.

And remember that Lex Luthor quote. It will become very useful if you study literature in grad school.

what's AP?

AP means "Advanced Placement" and IB means "International Baccalaureate"... AP classes are "smart people classes" and IB classes are also "smart people classes", there is a lot of debate over which is better/who is smarter ;) I personally think that IB kids are smarter, but yet incredibly stupid for taking IB (unless they're geniuses)

Anyways, what really horrible is when you then start seeing similar symbols in other things... I watched a movie a while back (can't remember what it was) and made connections between it and Albert Camus's "The Stranger" *shudder* and I hated that book... The good thing about putting so many symbols in stories/books is that they are mostly BS, and if you're good at BS, then you do fine ;)

Why, exactly, do you imagine symbols to be mostly BS? Should all art be reduced to a variant of Frank Stella's dictum, "What you see is what you see"? Should we imagine that every work of fiction and every poem is "about" nothing more than the literal narrative? Personally, I find a great part of the poetry in a work of literature lies in the various symbolic interpretations that go beyond the literal.

My highschool doesn't have AP courses. I'd like to take one though. It is a bit annoying when I'm usually the only one in my class to finish our reading assignments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThousandthIsle

I found myself resenting AP English in the same way I resent certain religions - where somebody gets their hands on a book and draws their own conclusions/interpretations without running it by the author, and then puts it in everyone else's face as a fact.

---

This is a somewhat fair criticism - but, as an AP teacher, I think there are some things to consider.

1. Good AP teachers are (or should be) aware the their interpretation of the book is only ONE potential way to interpret it; I make it clear that the way I see the book is not the definitive way the book should be interpreted, but that it is a way that logically adds up for me. They are invited to challenge my reading and demand me to defend that reading; as well, they are encouraged to come up with their own readings and defend them.

2. We can't "run our interpretation by the author" for a number of reasons:

a. The author's likely to be dead (at least for the books in my course).
b. The author - if alive - wouldn't tell me if I was right anyway; most authors are notoriously evasive when it comes to interpreting their writing, and some (like Faulkner) would simply tell you a lie as a red herring.

My English class just began a week ago but it's really, really boring. We haven't begun reading anything but my teacher just quoted a reading list and it's supposed to be classics. The only thing I've done there is stare out of the window while writing poetry. figures.

Well, in that particular book, your teacher is probably right.

But it's true that often books are disected so far that we see not what the author wrote, but what we expect to see. It's silly, really.

My Dad is a teacher, and one of his friends once met with the author of a book she teaches in her class. She asked about some important underlying symbol in the novel, and the author said 'What?'. After the teacher explained what she had been teaching most of her life, the author said 'Well, I didn't put those things there on purpose, but it certainly makes sense.'

Often the best authors do these thing subconciously - if it's so subtle that you think it probably doesn't mean anything, but your teacher says it does, humor them. You might learn something.

By the way - my Dad is an IB History teacher, and his friend was my English II-Honors teacher.

Just ignore my signature, it's being funky tonight...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Why, exactly, do you imagine symbols to be mostly BS? Should all art be reduced to a variant of Frank Stella's dictum, "What you see is what you see"? Should we imagine that every work of fiction and every poem is "about" nothing more than the literal narrative? Personally, I find a great part of the poetry in a work of literature lies in the various symbolic interpretations that go beyond the literal.

---

First of all, sorry that I took so long to post (haven't had time to get on)... Anyways, I'm not saying all symbols are BS, just the horrible ones that AP and IB teachers put into the work :sick: . Most kids get through IB with good "BS skills", and those "skills" are incredibly useful in english. I mean, we had to read Equus in theatre, and my theatre teacher went on and on about how the main character was gay, but because his dad was so strict, he couldn't be, and so his motivation was that he wanted to be gay... And that the horse was symbolizing a man or something. I told him that was horribly wrong and... wrong, but I couldn't think of a different motivation for him, so he was convinced he was right :rolleyes: (of course my gay teacher would come up with this). And finally, there are some works that have no symbols, they are just stories for stories sake.

If an authors got something to say, why don't they just say it? Why bury it away in subtle allusions and symbols that may or may not be there? If what the author has to say is important enough to the author, I would hope they would put it right out in front for ALL to see. It would seem that if the idea is important enough, the author would make an effort to make it show through without question.

The answer lies in something rather simple and obvious - those dull and boring Formal Logic and Philosophy lessons from your average high school (yeah, those during which you used to read incognito, or play pocket chess with your mate, or just stare through the window on the outside sunny day instead of paying attention when the basics of semiotics were introduced :D).
As much as you could apply those concepts to philosophy or linguistics - you can also apply them to art.

Without going into the sign/symbol/etc differentiation, let me remind you of one very important point: nothing is a symbol until interpreted as such. In fact, the need for interpretation of something as a symbol, in order for it to have a nature of a symbol, was the part of definition if I recall correctly.

Technically, everything around you are symbols. The words you are reading now are symbols. Even moreso, the language itself you are speaking is composed out of symbols. (Remember your native language classes from school... what was that definition of a language? ... a set of symbols..., rings a bell? ;)) The words of a language stand for something else, their acoustic "value" of a sound, or visual "value" of a written word, are not itself a concept you create in your mind when you see/hear a specific word, it represents something else (by similarity or not - if we get into this we will get into symbol/sign differentiation, etc, which I consider to be fairly pointless for this purpose), ergo, it is a symbol. But, until you interpret it, it is purely - nothing. A scratch on a paper. A sound. And nothing more. It takes your interpretation of it to make it a symbol, and to give to it certain value.

Symbols are typical for human beings. In fact, symbol is a "unit" of what you would call "culture" (remember that typical high school division of reality - organic with cell as unit, anorganic with atom as unit, and suborganic - i.e. culture - with sign as a unit?), the whole culture itself, produced by mankind, is based on symbols and interpretation of symbols - starting with language, that very first "symbolic" property of a man.

Alas, I digress. My point being: having in mind the typical school definition of a symbol, and recognising the reality around you being formed also out of symbols, just "raise" the whole issue one level higher - and apply it to art.

Then you will see why it is perfectly possible of both sides of the argument being right. The question is not what is a symbol in literary piece (impossible to say), but, rather, what do I interpret as a symbol (and, in cases of high school Literature classes, what have dozens of critics before your professor interpreted as a symbol). Another person's reality can never be your reality, all is subjective, all is a subject of interpretation - especially Literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

This is a somewhat fair criticism - but, as an AP teacher, I think there are some things to consider.

---

You are right, Red, and I did not mean to come off as so unappreciative towards teachers. I should have clarified my resentment towards AP English better, so I will do it now! My teacher was in the middle of a divorce the year I had AP English. To make it worse, the man she was divorcing was another English teacher whose classroom was right next to hers, and all day, all year, we could hear his voice echoing through the walls. I'm sure that didn't help her keep her focus on her class.

A lot of the material we were presented felt very fragmented to all of us. I should have been more specific in saying that it was this particular class, not the AP English program as a whole. I enjoy looking deeper into literature, and even considering possible interpretations to texts. However, there was so much given to us with such wishy-washy reasoning... I remember being very irritated throughout the year as our teacher made these claims - not presenting them as a possiblity so much as - "Here's what so-and-so was symbolising," and then never really elaborating beyond that so her students could learn how she came upon that conclusion. She also should have treated symbolism more subjectively. She presented it very cut and dry, and for a long time, I was very intimidated by literature, because I was afraid I would not catch all of the "hidden meanings."

I was a nervous wreck before the AP exams (she always gave me 2s on our practice exams in class), and I was very doubtful that my own mind could carry me through the exams - wondering if I would be able to manage to interpret everything correctly. I passed both lit exams with 4s each, and more than granting me college credits, those scores assured me that everyone has a right to enjoy literature, and to draw their own meanings from it.

If an authors got something to say, why don't they just say it? Why bury it away in subtle allusions and symbols that may or may not be there? If what the author has to say is important enough to the author, I would hope they would put it right out in front for ALL to see. It would seem that if the idea is important enough, the author would make an effort to make it show through without question.

Then why should an author or any artist even waste the time with the art? If Beethoven wanted to convey nothing more than that he felt melancholy sometimes why not simply say so and forget all the effort in composing a sonata or symphony that might not clearly be understood by all. If Dickens wanted to say something along the line of "poverty sucks" why waste all that time and effort inventing characters and narratives that were completely superfluous? He could have simply said "Poverty sucks," and we'd all nod our heads in agreement and been done with it. And what the hell were all those painters thinking? All those images and colors and textures. Just say what you've got to say and be done with it. And poets! My God, those poets! They're the worst. Rhyme and form and rhythm and all that time seeking for the "perfect word"... the "perfect metaphor". What a waste of time. Surely Shakespeare could have saved himself a good deal of time and paper and ink and replaced half of his sonnets with a simple phrase that was clear and to the point... perhaps something like "When I think of you, I feel blue". Heck, it even rhymes.:rolleyes: :nod:

there are some works that have no symbols, they are just stories for stories sake.

Yes... there are some stories that are just stories and there are some paintings that are just images... or at least they may begin as such for the artist. As a visual artist I can tell you that a work of art may begin with nothing more than an intention to capture a certain image or mood or atmosphere that caught the artist's eye. You would do well to remember, however, that most artists in any field (literature, music, visual art) are very well educated within their field. Most of the strongest poets have read a great deal of poetry. Most painters have looked a great deal at other's paintings. As a work of art develops these various influences often come into play. Sometimes it is consciously... perhaps an intentional reference to another artist or even a rejection of his or her work. In other instances it may be subconsciously. As an artist's body of work grows the influences and the levels of "meaning" often grow increasingly complex. This does not mean that you cannot appreciate such a work of art without grasping all these levels of meaning, allusions and relationships. This can only happen as the audience/reader/viewer/listener becomes more experienced. Someone listening to Beethoven's 5th Symphony with little or no experience of classical music can certainly appreciate the work for its drama and its powerful and beautiful tunes. Someone with a good deal of experience with classical music may also appreciate the manner in which Beethoven built upon and greatly expanded the traditional classical forms and might also recognize how his work acts as a precursor for later composers. Art is continually engaged in a dialog. Every truly strong work of art enters into the dialog not merely with the audience but also with other artists. A truly strong new work of art will often impact how we see older works as well as influence future works. By the same token the great work of art will speak to the audience of the present as well as the future. As J.L Borges noted in one of his wonderful essays the Shakespeare or the Don Quixote that were read in the 1600s were not the same works that were read by the Victorians nor the same works as we read today. By the same token, the Shakespeare that you read at 16 will certainly not be the same Shakespeare you read at 35 or 70. The role of the teacher or the critic with regard to literature is in part to lead the reader to perhaps become aware of some of these other levels of meaning or interpretation that exist in the work of art. Certainly you may disagree with a teacher's or a critic's interpretations... indeed I would encourage anyone to be ever skeptical and open to thinking for themselves. However, if you are to challenge this teacher or critic's interpretations you must be aware that you must be able to back up your arguments. You think your teacher was wrong in a specific instance about a specific work... why do you think he was wrong? Have you read what other critics have said? Have you read more by this author? Have you read enough of other key works of literature so that you can recognize this author's predecessors and successors? Learning to regurgitate what was taught to you... to BS about what you imagine the teacher wants to hear is certainly a skill that will get you through most high-school and college literature courses. Learning to think for your self... and developing the skills and knowledge base needed to back up your thoughts is infinitely more difficult... and I would suggest, infinitely more rewarding.:idea:

Quote:

---

Then why should an author or any artist even waste the time with the art? If Beethoven wanted to convey nothing more than that he felt melancholy sometimes why not simply say so and forget all the effort in composing a sonata or symphony that might not clearly be understood by all. If Dickens wanted to say something along the line of "poverty sucks" why waste all that time and effort inventing characters and narratives that were completely superfluous? He could have simply said "Poverty sucks," and we'd all nod our heads in agreement and been done with it. And what the hell were all those painters thinking? All those images and colors and textures. Just say what you've got to say and be done with it. And poets! My God, those poets! They're the worst. Rhyme and form and rhythm and all that time seeking for the "perfect word"... the "perfect metaphor". What a waste of time. Surely Shakespeare could have saved himself a good deal of time and paper and ink and replaced half of his sonnets with a simple phrase that was clear and to the point... perhaps something like "When I think of you, I feel blue". Heck, it even rhymes.:rolleyes: :nod:

---

I assumed that my post would be misunderstood. I never said "say it simply" or in 2 words. I said make it more obvious. Otherwise, isn't the author just writing for him or herself? And if that's the case, that none of that other stuff is meant for the general reader, then what becomes the point of reading these more challenging and supposedly "deeper" works. Many people read to challenge their own ideas, to "broaden their mind", and so on. But if the only books with these high-brow ideas are the ones that are impenetrable to people without PhD's in literature what becomes the point? We might as well just read John Grisham, because the average person can't decipher the subtle allusions and symbols in these other works.

Again, I'm also not talking about the obvious, like Dicken's thoughts on poverty or Shakespeare on love. I'm talking about more subtly suggested ideas like those found in Joyce, Pynchon, Gaddis, Nabokov, Barth and all the other highly allusive and symbolic writers whose underlying ideas are buried deeply in their works and cannot be found unless you have an extensive background in the topics that support their work.