Is literature education a real necessity to teach in public schools?

[Drkshadow03]

Perhaps its the learner. It all depends on the teacher anyway - if you don't like the method of reading literature in high school, wait until university. I tell you, it is about 1000x more in depth, cutting every piece apart, and writing scansion for more poems than you have ever read.

All the boredom you think of when you think of English class is there for a reason.

Eh, I found high school English boring, but I really enjoyed my undergrad and graduate school experiences.

You're college experience sounds far more intense and rigorous than mine, and keep in mind I've been to three different universities (all with very different atmosphere and slightly different focuses in their English departments).

Literary Studies pretty much consisted of: 1) read novel/poem/essay/short story 2) talk about it and interpret it as a class. 3) Sometimes write an essay on it if assigned.

The only difference in grad school really was: Read significantly more each week, talk about it even more in depth, and write an essay every week for the works plus a major essay at the end rather than just the one or two assigned essays.

[JBI]

Yes - but even undergrad, of which I am going through right now, introduces approaches to literature, which simply weren't known before university. I don't think I ever had to actually do research on critical opinions of texts before university. The fact remains that university English requires a) more reading time b) deeper analysis with direct observations, and more supported theses, c) less assignments, but far more difficult ones, which actually are marked on things other than content, and d) lectures over discussions (at least for my school, since most classes are 100+ people for the first three years, and therefore it is impossible to really have a highschool-size discussion).

Lets be honest, I would never have thought to have to scan a poem, and then look for all rhetorical devices inside it, in highschool. Most people in highschool think of metre as 5 iambs, yet when you get to university, you need to learn things like Pyrrhic substitution, sporadic substitution, female rhyme, masculine rhyme, accentual metre, and even more complex things like quantitative metre in English, which is perhaps the most difficult metre to scan, in my opinion. That is just scansion though, rhetorical tropes are even more abundant and complex - to me, high school poetry was looking for metaphors in Shakespeare's sonnets - university poetry is more like looking for the effects of said devices, how he uses them, and what effect they have upon the reader/argument.

I think the big difference, specifically for poetry, is a switch from what is poetry to how is poetry, which is simply a 1000x more in depth analysis.

[blp]

Yes it is.

[Drkshadow03]

Yes - but even undergrad, of which I am going through right now, introduces approaches to literature, which simply weren't known before university. I don't think I ever had to actually do research on critical opinions of texts before university. The fact remains that university English requires a) more reading time b) deeper analysis with direct observations, and more supported theses, c) less assignments, but far more difficult ones, which actually are marked on things other than content, and d) lectures over discussions (at least for my school, since most classes are 100+ people for the first three years, and therefore it is impossible to really have a highschool-size discussion).

Lets be honest, I would never have thought to have to scan a poem, and then look for all rhetorical devices inside it, in highschool. Most people in highschool think of metre as 5 iambs, yet when you get to university, you need to learn things like Pyrrhic substitution, sporadic substitution, female rhyme, masculine rhyme, accentual metre, and even more complex things like quantitative metre in English, which is perhaps the most difficult metre to scan, in my opinion. That is just scansion though, rhetorical tropes are even more abundant and complex - to me, high school poetry was looking for metaphors in Shakespeare's sonnets - university poetry is more like looking for the effects of said devices, how he uses them, and what effect they have upon the reader/argument.

I think the big difference, specifically for poetry, is a switch from what is poetry to how is poetry, which is simply a 1000x more in depth analysis.

I am fascinated about how different our educations were. We never focused on things like that in the various universities I attended. I've done a couple of scansions sure, but it didn't sound half as intense as what you had to do (we had to find some devices, not all, and again most of the time was spent on the meaning of the poem). Then again I am the first to admit that I found my education extremely piecemeal.

Like I said, most of our education was read story/poem/essay and have a discussion/interpet in a group with the professor guiding. Sometimes we would talk about techniques of rhetoric in a poem or short story or novel, but those rarely happened and almost always was to elaborate on the meaning of a poem (how the structure or a technique produces a certain meaning). My education focused less on concrete knowledge about literary techniques, although we learned a little of that when necessary and were expected to know the basics of course, and more on critical thinking skills to develop proper interpretive abilities. On the other hand, my English classes were never more than 30 students and usually a lot less than that, so it as easier to have such discussions.

Even in my poetry classes there was more emphasis on trying to introduce the student to many different types of poetry and poets and styles than a lot of time spent on the actual formal techniques of the poets themselves. ::shrugs::

[LitNetIsGreat]

What about literary theory: Marxist criticism, psychoanalytical, feminism, structuralism and so on, weren't they on your course? I personally find such methods of analysis very interesting, if not a little difficult at times, but usually always rewarding.

[Kafka's Crow]

Yes - but even undergrad, of which I am going through right now, introduces approaches to literature, which simply weren't known before university. I don't think I ever had to actually do research on critical opinions of texts before university. The fact remains that university English requires a) more reading time b) deeper analysis with direct observations, and more supported theses, c) less assignments, but far more difficult ones, which actually are marked on things other than content, and d) lectures over discussions (at least for my school, since most classes are 100+ people for the first three years, and therefore it is impossible to really have a highschool-size discussion).

Lets be honest, I would never have thought to have to scan a poem, and then look for all rhetorical devices inside it, in highschool. Most people in highschool think of metre as 5 iambs, yet when you get to university, you need to learn things like Pyrrhic substitution, sporadic substitution, female rhyme, masculine rhyme, accentual metre, and even more complex things like quantitative metre in English, which is perhaps the most difficult metre to scan, in my opinion. That is just scansion though, rhetorical tropes are even more abundant and complex - to me, high school poetry was looking for metaphors in Shakespeare's sonnets - university poetry is more like looking for the effects of said devices, how he uses them, and what effect they have upon the reader/argument.

I think the big difference, specifically for poetry, is a switch from what is poetry to how is poetry, which is simply a 1000x more in depth analysis.

When I completed my BA back in 1989, we had to study 'Practical Criticism'. Did a whole module in Critical Theory & Practical Criticism for my first MA in early 90s. We were taught major critical theory from Aristotle's Poetics and Longinus' On the Sublime to TS Eliot's two essays on Milton and Tradition and Individual Talent. When I went back to university in 2000-2001, there was less emphasis on 'practical criticism' and absolutely no talk of prosody and metre etc. In ten years, the standards were totally changed. Lecture meant open discussion, Practical Criticism was totally overlooked, even while studying poetry. Marking had become less strict and there was less toil, sweat and pure Columbian coffee involved in our labour. Still studying literature meant reading hundreds and hundreds of books but we were expected to be more precise and systematic in citing our references. There was a whole compulsory module on 'Research Methodology' in which we were taught how to use resources and how to find and cite them.

I had totally forgotten about prosody till I read Stephen Fry's The Ode Less Travelled last month which brought it all back to me after almost sixteen years. Excellent and very amusing book. Highly recommended:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ode-Less-Tra...1419774&sr=8-1

[Drkshadow03]

What about literary theory: Marxist criticism, psychoanalytical, feminism, structuralism and so on, weren't they on your course? I personally find such methods of analysis very interesting, if not a little difficult at times, but usually always rewarding.

I cannot speak for JBI, but I had a ton of literary theory in graduate school. Prior to graduate school I had hardly any; we talked about it once or twice in a lecture or two in an intro class and we talked about semiotics once during a poetry class I took, but really only touched upon it briefly.

It wasn't until graduate school that I really wrestled with theory for better or worse, and even then I only touched the surface because there is just so much of it to learn that you could never fully cover in a Master's program.

However, had I gone to undergrad where I went to graduate school I would have had to have taken an undergrad class on theory and the professors would've had theoritical essays and books to read in addition to literary works, having seen some of the syllabuses for the undergrads. The reason for this is my program here is extremely theory-oriented. So it really all depends where you end up going to school I suppose.

My other two programs, one a community college, and the other a private university, were NOT theory-oriented at all, but we spent most of our time reading, you know, actual literature.

I think my last sentence sort of betrays my feeling on theory. Theory can indeed be interesting, especially if you're interested in philosophy, but it takes up time in the classroom that can be spent covering actual literary works, and it has the tendency to devolve into what I have called "checklist criticism," in which you stop paying attention to the unique qualities and themes a particular work expresses and try to plug it in so it fits your pet theory. This isn't to say all literary criticism that turns to theory is automatically awful, but I've listened to far too many long-winded papers loaded with theoritical jargon that could've made exactly the same point about the work without once drawing on theory. I find that theory tends to obfuscate a work rather than enlighten us about its meaning, with a few rare exceptions.

[mangueken]

This is always a good debate to have. But sometimes we need to step back and try to get a different perspective. I wonder, for example, what someone who never had access to education might think of this debate? There are many such people still in the world. In the Northeastern states of Brazil many people can't read and write and yet they still have a popular form of poetry called Cordel. It's a type of poetry that tells stories, has it's own rhythm and rhyme scheme. There are people who travel from small town to small town singing these cordel poems and people, uneducated, mostly rural peasants enjoy them.
I think we have a basic need to hear stories, read stories be a part of stories about people and create a relationship with them that helps define who we are. A story can challenge and change our views and perceptions of the world and of ourselves.
Most humans have, in fact, lived without education in the arts and philosophy. Those things were reserved for higher classes.
I, for one, am glad to live in country where so many people read. I don't care that most of what is read is of the King, Rice or some self help/ new age equivalent. It just means our education has to go the next step and help people learn how to read more critically and ask more out of what they read.
I disagree with the idea that somehow math and science are more or less important than the arts though. If anyone had told me when I was graduating high school that I would one day live in a Portuguese speaking country getting extra work from biologists and doctors translating and editing their studies for publication in British and American scientific journals I doubt I would have thought the person could have come up with a more impossible situation in my life. Thankfully, my natural love of literature and reading in general as well as the science classes, which I thought were torture back in high school, opened up opportunities for me.
I think, that, in the end, is the point. We don't know what the future holds for us or our children and they should be exposed to as much as possible in our education system. Not only for economic benefit but also for personal wealth it creates.
Truck drivers love a good short order cook. I'm always grateful there are people who come to pick up my trash twice a week. But is that all they should expect from life? Think how much more fulfilled life is when you have literature and the arts in general to accompany you.

[teejay17]

Literature is one of the most important subjects because it can incorporate every other subject taught in school.

[Mariamosis]

This topic or argument against teaching literature in school really hits a nerve for me.

Just the other day a co-worker was arguing the same point. He was chiefly concerned with why schools would make history and literature a mandatory class whereas music and visual arts are electives. He feels that history and literature should be considered electives as well.

He also feels that math should only be required up to a certain point. Primarily addition, subtraction, multiplication and division as the only required subjects to understand unless you are going to become a mathemetician or work for NASA.

According to him science should be limited to focus generally on a few simple issues, unless of course you are to become a scientist. His view of history would result in teaching a broad view of the past 50-100 years.

.... and this is a grown man who has had some fairly lucrative careers! .... incidentally, his wife is a teacher!!!

[blazeofglory]

Of course it is really necessary and at a very tender age literature should be taught to children so that they can discriminate between good and bad.

And of course they will be morally guided and learn their responsibility in life.

[kiki1982]

In Belgium, up until now, they do not narrow down.

Primary school is basic with Dutch or French or German main language (depending on where in the country you live of course) (learning to read), something like science all in one, mathematics, later French/Dutch second languae at 11 and with that also Geography and History.

Flemish system:

at 12-13: Latin (5 hours a week) or Modern Languages (i.e. Dutch and French, but a little more) plus Mathematics (4), French (4 at least), Biology (2), Geography (2), History (2), Dutch (4), and a few fillers like PE, RE, Drawing and Technology.

at 13-14: English is iintroduced, together with Greek for the ones who would like that. Normal sucjects continue. One can change towards the modern languges section as they have had the same programm, only in a more drawn out time-span.

Here you can choose for to a more 'specialised' approach, although you will keep all your subjects, hours will be taken off or put on subjects you like better. German, for example, is one like that. The students of Modern Languages get 1 hour per week from 15 onwards, after 2 years 3, while the students of Latin get one hour per week only at 17 through to 18.

at 14-15: German is introduced with Chemistry, Physics and IT, other subjects continue.

at 15-16: Nothing changes much.

at 16-17: Normally you continue your course of 'specialisation' and more focus comes on the things you like, but other subjects continue.

at 17-18: The same as the year before.

Until the end, you get all your sciences (although their amount of hours might b reduced from 2 to 1 hour f.e.), all your languages (4) with Grammar and exercises. For the mothertongue, actually, you only start on literature at 16-17 (poetry). The year after there are the books and some foreign pieces when it comes to the classic period. Before then it's all about vocabulary, grammar (how do I spell...?) and linguistics in general (what is a subject, verb, adjective...?). French focusses largely on comprehension and grammar too, as does English. With English, in the last 2 years, something can be done as to Shakespeare and with French too. German is difficult, but for the Dutchspeaking there is a possibility. Although most of that course still focusses on that grammar that is so important.

The huge amount of grammar you get in your mothertongue might seem useless as you know how your own bl**dy language works, but it is of great use when learning another like German, French or Russian (as I am doing now). If they tell you 'the adverb comes before the verb' and you don't know what an adverb is, you have a problem. Learning a language becomes much harder without basic linguistics. Other than that adult literature cannot be taught to one below 16 as they cannot grasp difficult psychological concepts. Who is going to understand the struggle between propriety and passion when not old enough?

The carrying on of all of those subjects on the side allows for a consistent programm that concludes at the end of the whole education. Biology ends with the humans and cell-reproduction (mytosis, chromosomes and whatnot), history ends with WWII and the cold war, Geography with demography and whatnot, Chemistry with organic links and Physics with electricity (if I am right on that). This long, long programm with a lot of informaion that seems useless is not so as it induces a better understanding of everything in life later. If I only have learned about the cold war for 1 hour, how can I understand the society of now? My dryer burned a little bit, is an electricity problem or just the dust in it if the safety did not do its work?

It is not what is useful or what one likes that one has to learn, it is what might be useful some day that one should learn. If I now learn Russian, I am so grateful that I had this great amount of grammar thrust upon me, because it is much clearer like that, than if I did not know what they meant. If one does not know what a direct object is, then one does not know where to put the accusative, or one has to learn by experience which costs a lot more time and talent.

Also, a teenager cannot know where his interests will go. I was good at maths once, but it did not work out. Where had I stood if I had specialised in math at 14? (when I was still good at it). Interests, even later on in life, change. We cannot deprive anyone from the chance to discover an interest because we find all should be specialised.

Belgian universities do not even teach on a low level, so the argument that a specialised level is necessary to reach the right level in university is not valid.

And of course literature should be taught. It is one of the most accessible arts adn it offers, as StLukes said, an understanding of a culture. Not to mention its usefulness () when it comes to vocabulary, grammar, and tone in writing and speaking...

[LitNetIsGreat]

This topic or argument against teaching literature in school really hits a nerve for me.

Just the other day a co-worker was arguing the same point. He was chiefly concerned with why schools would make history and literature a mandatory class whereas music and visual arts are electives. He feels that history and literature should be considered electives as well.

He also feels that math should only be required up to a certain point. Primarily addition, subtraction, multiplication and division as the only required subjects to understand unless you are going to become a mathemetician or work for NASA.

According to him science should be limited to focus generally on a few simple issues, unless of course you are to become a scientist. His view of history would result in teaching a broad view of the past 50-100 years.

.... and this is a grown man who has had some fairly lucrative careers! .... incidentally, his wife is a teacher!!!

Yeah, but there are a lot of morons around, so such opinions don't surprise me. Just ignore him. I'm sure that there are people around who would want to replace literature with burger flipping or till operating classes; we live in that sort of world.

Kiki, that is interesting, though unsurprising, about the Belgian educational system regarding languages especially. England is so behind when it comes to languages, it's quite embarrassing, damn country.

[JBI]

I cannot speak for JBI, but I had a ton of literary theory in graduate school. Prior to graduate school I had hardly any; we talked about it once or twice in a lecture or two in an intro class and we talked about semiotics once during a poetry class I took, but really only touched upon it briefly.

It wasn't until graduate school that I really wrestled with theory for better or worse, and even then I only touched the surface because there is just so much of it to learn that you could never fully cover in a Master's program.

However, had I gone to undergrad where I went to graduate school I would have had to have taken an undergrad class on theory and the professors would've had theoritical essays and books to read in addition to literary works, having seen some of the syllabuses for the undergrads. The reason for this is my program here is extremely theory-oriented. So it really all depends where you end up going to school I suppose.

My other two programs, one a community college, and the other a private university, were NOT theory-oriented at all, but we spent most of our time reading, you know, actual literature.

I think my last sentence sort of betrays my feeling on theory. Theory can indeed be interesting, especially if you're interested in philosophy, but it takes up time in the classroom that can be spent covering actual literary works, and it has the tendency to devolve into what I have called "checklist criticism," in which you stop paying attention to the unique qualities and themes a particular work expresses and try to plug it in so it fits your pet theory. This isn't to say all literary criticism that turns to theory is automatically awful, but I've listened to far too many long-winded papers loaded with theoritical jargon that could've made exactly the same point about the work without once drawing on theory. I find that theory tends to obfuscate a work rather than enlighten us about its meaning, with a few rare exceptions.

I don't know - I've been reading theoretical works that tie in in all different sorts of places and courses - I got communication theory for a course I did on Canadian media, I get all sorts of strange theoretical readings from working now with East Asian focuses, and all sorts of other stuff depending on what I take - but on the whole, theory is interesting, but hardly useful - the bulk of what I have been doing is intense close reading of texts, which requires some idea of the theoretical, preferably Aristotelian theoretical stuff, as apposed to the onanist trash you get from contemporaries wanting to get tenure, but on the whole, theory has been sidelined for me as approaches, rather than as content.

But of course, it depends on what one take - my university has pretty strict guidelines that ensure a sort of rounding, but I know in the states one can get away without really studying the classics much, and with focusing on contemporary issues tied in with pseudo-philosophies and political hogwash.

It doesn't matter though, as I generally read theory anyway on my spare time - but one could easily get by with just picking up the theoretical stuff second-hand in condensed form from a professor, and rarely, if needed, flipping to the primary texts.

[kiki1982]

@Neely:

I think the problem the English have is that they never see another language on television. Belgium (or at least the Flemish part, because the Frenchspeaking are as good as the French...) buys a lot of English, French and sometimes German broadcasts. Sometimes even Spanish and what-not. They are all subtitled. People who speak strange languages in the news are subtitled,not dubbed like on the BBC. That allows people to practice or learn.

The problem is also, in my view, that their education (also in languaes) is too much centred on practice and skills. Not on grammar and translation. True, you preferably learn to have a conversation in a language, but without good grammar and some systematic learning, most of us will not master it. Particularly things like German become very hard when not explained and practiced. Also the failure of teaching students English (apostrophes, what are they for? How do I spell 'intelligence'?) is harmful for their later careers. What employer wants a secretary who cannot spell properly in e-mails? Or what professor wants a paper of a student that is full of spelling mistakes? I think the English could do very well with a course in French, because they would then maybe spell their words correctly, or at least a great part of them. Their mentality of 'never mind, English is too difficult to spell because the pronunciation is so different (poor children)' always makes me scream. How come that I can write tolerably? and others too? Do we suddenly pronounce the language diffrently? It is largely down to the concern for skills and toning down of knowledge-school. 2+2 can never be allowed to be 5 or 3, yet 'men's toilets' can become 'mens toilets' (really seen on a public toilet in Manchester five steps rom the town hall!)?

The Luxemburgers appartently head the list on language education, as they know five, and four very well and compulsory and a fifth one free choice.