Well, I feel absolutely fine endorsing things like anti-racism in my classroom. I feel absolutely fine pointing out messages novels send. If you don't, JCamillo, become a teacher and do it the right way, since you so perfectly know how.
I was going to get into the discussion here, but as far as I can tell, you're just talking out of your ***, stating multiple OPINIONS as if they were facts, and being quite pompous to boot.
In the end, this only proves: literature is not about understanding the message, watever it is, coming from the writer.Originally Posted by kiki1982
Your argument that he has no literary merit because he is no Goethe is as valid as someone saying Chekhov has no literary merits because he is no Tolstoy. Meaning, the argument makes no sense. By the same logic Twain has no literary merit, since he is no Emerson.Like I said, he definitely has great moments, brilliant moments even, which he is rightly praised for but his language is bland in most places. I do not mean bland as in not worth reading, I mean bland as in normal. There is nothing Ghoethe-esk about him. I have read him in German.
I never claimed he has no message. I said nobody knows what is Kafka message. The interpretation of Kafka is a hot topic of XX century literature, due to his allegorism and Koening guide is just one of thousands options. Nobody reads Kafka because Kafka message - but because of his merits and people try to product their own interpretation.The claim that there is no message in him is utterly ridiculous and so utterly ridiculous that the most easy guides you can buy in German (Koenig for example) which are made for school students actually put a lot of messages forward. Fro anti-semitism to his disclike for admin, to whatever seems relevant.
Not even funny. You claimed Kafka had no literary merit. I list some and just say it is one aspect when you should say "Oops, He has a lot of merit."That is one aspect of his merit though. You are not helping yourself either here.
I really challenge any belgiam to tell prove me kids learning to enjoy literature are taught with anything but some superficial stuff.Any Belgian will be able to tell you.
Obviously, people can do it with any text. So, why to bother to pull them Classics?It is not about Twain himself, but about learning to 'read' if you get my meaning; You can only learn that by practising.
Because 1% of the readers like it. Not related at all to kids having first contact with Twain.And why is that academic teaching? In order to think you need a brain, not a finely tuned computer.
I am not talking about Beauty at all. Discussing aesthetics has nothing to do with telling - or showing - moralization of literature teaching do more harm than good and the guys editing Twain are actually doing exactly that.Oh, so you are talking of the Platonic kind of beauty! Of course, I see! They're really going to get that if you tell them.
As to the rest, you twist my words to suit your own purpose.
I am already one. And if you feel fine, then I must repeat: You are doing exactly what the guys who edited Twain are doing. It is very easy with Twain, but not with works with undoubtable literary merit which are pro-racism, such as Benito Cereno by Melville. You would not allow your students to read it, would waste your time destroying the work, in name of your moralism. And in the end, you would be banning books who were written when your moral code was not dominant.
I feel glad to only defend my opinions, specially when I can defend them. As far I know moralization dampers teaching. I mentioned a couple of examples. I will be pompous if you address to me. I live in a castle after all.I was going to get into the discussion here, but as far as I can tell, you're just talking out of your ***, stating multiple OPINIONS as if they were facts, and being quite pompous to boot.
I am not advocating we change a work or the moral code it may or may not address. If a work does not address something morally, I will not impose it into the work. If a student interprets a work to have a moral message, we will discuss it.
If a book I was teaching had pro-racism themes, I would teach them, just like the anti-racism themes in HF. We would discuss those themes, I would see how students reacted to them, and go from there. I do not tolerate racism in my class, that just the way it is. If a student some something derogatory about another race, I do not let it go. Do you?
Too much moralization is a bad thing, especially when imposed when it isn't needed. In my limited experience, discussions on morals and ethics can be extremely productive.
And, sorry for the pejoratives. They were made in haste, and I write stupid things in haste.
Not tolerating bad mouthing is just not the same as someone building a controversial theme which is not easily to discern. And then again, Philosophers or others have better merits in putting those moral questions and discuss it. And then your class wont be literature, but philosophy.
I never said moral and ethical discussion to be not productive and that they should not be in class. I said that it is not affected by the editing (which is caused by a similar discussion after all); that other texts can discuss it objectivelly, more even; that literature was not as claimed about passing the message or moral code of the writer; and finally that is no the objective of showing kids for the first time the classics, but rather bring them the spark and pleasure for reading.Too much moralization is a bad thing, especially when imposed when it isn't needed. In my limited experience, discussions on morals and ethics can be extremely productive.
And, sorry for the pejoratives. They were made in haste, and I write stupid things in haste.
(of course, a point, a book and educational system is considered in face of all society and all teachers. Of course, your own actions in class - it is your realm - can not justify the decisions, once there is no form to grant all teachers will behave like you.)
As long as we're talking about a topic concerning whatever text we're reading, and it's relevant, it's fine in my eyes (especially seeing as how it's hard enough getting students to talk in the first place.
Agreed on pretty much all points (still, I think the n-word will generate more discussion through the sheer emotional impact of the word than "slave" will). I think there was some misunderstanding on my part. I know English is your third language and admire how well you do use it (and thank you for using it to share your thoughts on this board), but sometimes the grammar can trip me up if I read your posts too quickly.
Well, there is no problem into talking about the historical context of a text, but there entire criical schools who ignore it completely. It entirelly possible to have a class about Huck without discussing the matter, or yet, you can just make it as a history about friendship like Dom Quixote, Divina Comedy, Sherlock Holmes can all be. Nothing stops you, but there is no such absolute as "need only to be" or Twain is the best possible text if you objective is either historical (Why not Uncle Tom? It is much more direct. Why not the many other writers, non-fictional, who are more direct than Twain?) or why not philosophical (again, you can have other texts about it). In the end, Twain prevails because the prime objective is always the quality of his texts.
And no worries, arguments are safegrounds, I have no problem with being confused, confusing or confuse. Whole package.
Anyways, the N word exchange is silly as it gets, Slave is much more offensive after all. But the real reason why Huck can tell a story about the boy becoming friendly and reckonizing the vallue of Jim is much more due the capacity of Twain to develop and show this on both characters. It is not lost with the removal of the word. Twain merit stands.
However, from the point of view of another literary merit: Twain work with language, the realism he used, which is part of importance, it is certainly a huge mistake.
In order to re-interpret the message, the message must be understood. I think you get that.
Here you go again. You twist my words again. I said when it comes to his text alone he has little literary merit. Some, maybe, in his brilliant moments (which he definitely has) he has literary merit, but that is not even half of his text. I have read him in German and his language is... normal. Not more pompous, not more sophisticated than the average letter he wrote. He rarely uses metaphor explicitly. Apart from the extended and implicit metaphors in his Metamorphosis for example, which is the message, so according to your theory we must disregard that completely and think that Samsa really became a cockroach or rodent or whatever. Kafka only uses comparisons extensively in the most boring way. He uses the same word for the same thing three times in one sentence because he chooses to. He uses an incredible amount of 'übrigens' (by the way) and 'doch/ja' (after all). He uses very few expressions. When writing dialogues, he does not change his expressions for 'saying'. He continues with 'sagte K', 'sagte der Wirt', 'sagte K', 'sagte der Wirt' and so forth. He chooses it, it is not that he could not change it. An editor would have problems with that.
Face it, there is a sort of sloppiness in his work which is part of him, but which a serious 19th-early 20ieth century editor would not have accepted. He only got a small number of his work published while living. Most of it was published after his death; Why do you think? Part of the problem was his writing style.
His greatest merit, and I do not say 'literary merit' because his language is nothing special, is what is behind his text (impressions v appearances v perception; outsiders in society and reasons; obsessions with administrative organisation; father v son; existentialism of Kierkegaard). That is acknowledged by most as well. That you, as a reader, have to go deeper in order to really enjoy his work, because on the surface there is a sea of words, no more. And mostly such in consistent things that happen that you are at a loss which the bloody hell is happening anyway. In order to preserve your own sanity, you better look at what is behind it.
Oh, and you think Koenig and the other company which publishes those companions have no public to sell them to? Their production is only charity no doubt. That companion was one which was used in schools. I looked at them all and they pretty much put the same introductions forward, only written in different wording by another author of course which, for your information, were connected to universities. Those companions are especially marketed towards the school student and written in silmple language.
The claim that no-one knows Kafka's message is utterly ridiculous.
People cannot do it with any text simply because any text does not offer the same depth. Some texts are just superficial, only surface and nothing more. Amongst the deeper texts, there are those which are easier and those which are not so easy to discover. Any idea why Jane Eyre is so popular? Because it offers straight away some discussable ideas about women which are obvious and do not require such extensive analysis, secondary texts, philosophy etc. Still, analysis is analysis. As such, if you start on Brontë's view on women for example, then you are doing it. It doesn't need to be difficult in order to be effective. Things become more tricky in terms of Hardy's Tess for example. There you could discuss whether Hardy meant to make her a feeble or strong woman. And that is without becoming feminist because it should be mentioned that neither Jane Eyre nor Tess are not really an argument for raving feminists, despite them having made that of it.
I am with Mutatis if I say that moral messages should not be imposed if they are not inherent to the text. Though, ff Twain disapproved of slavery then that should be taught, and his views on it discovered, the way he does that t the same time, and while doing it, you could discover the concept of satire.
Can you finally tell me what you consider 'literary merit' by the way, as I am now at a loss what you conider it to be if it is not a message/opinion of the author at any time, nor aesthetics...
And then I am also puzzled at what you do with allegories or pieces that are possible but which clearly evoke a theory like Cyrano de Bergerac which despises nice words without contents and mock that idea. If you only teach the literary merit of it, in my mind aesthetics, which is clearly abundant, you might as well not bother as that was clearly not the purpose of the piece.
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
I think the editing may well be a good approach to schooling children in the related but complex race issues around race and language. Certainly slave is easier to understand for the younger kids, whereas the term Nigger has more complex contemporary and historical associations. I'm not against editing for this reason. It's not as if the unedited book is being banned - it's still available to follow up for older kids.
No, it does not. That is why in Belgium people do not teach in depth anything. Understanding the text is not similar to understanding the message. Interpretation creates a third "object" from the symbols (and their union). You may produce a message even without ever understanding what the author ever wanted to write, which is far from literal form.
Here you go again. You twist my words again. I said when it comes to his text alone he has little literary merit. Some, maybe, in his brilliant moments (which he definitely has) he has literary merit, but that is not even half of his text. I have read him in German and his language is... normal. Not more pompous, not more sophisticated than the average letter he wrote. He rarely uses metaphor explicitly. Apart from the extended and implicit metaphors in his Metamorphosis for example, which is the message, so according to your theory we must disregard that completely and think that Samsa really became a cockroach or rodent or whatever.
No, I did not misunderstood or twisted your words. Your position is fragile, easy to be contested that is all. You attempted to justify the reading of a canonical author by claiming he is read because of his (1)message and (2)not because his literary merits which are few.
(1) The message of Kafka is not an universal consensus. People debate about it over and over. It is a huge mistery even because they consider the interference of Max Brody on the editions of the text. His texts are compared often to a new kabala. And you do not get it well, claiming his metaphors (sic) are a message (geez, a metaphor is not a message, it is the code that the metaphor implies that is the message) and not either the literal form of the text.
(2)I listed some of reasons of his litery merit. And they are find intensily on his work. Even in his letters. By such, it should be enough to dismiss those claims of Kafka's minor literary merits. But you insist, and it is not much good. You mention again the pompous and not sophisticated (sic) language and seems to fail to understand that short story writers are not meant to use pompous language. The order is the simplification of language aiming for higher impact. That is Poe rule, Maupassant, Tchekhov, Borges, Hemingway and all of them are using language with quality and style; It is not a lack of merit, but a merit of higher order. And to end, Kafka didnt use metaphors, he use allegories, which increases the difficulty of interpretation of his texts considerably. But it also shows a domain of form and modernization of jewish culture that allow him to stand out in XX century by his litery merit.
An editor would have problem with Kafka? And with Joyce? And with Faulkner? And hell, J.K.Rowling had problems! Good argument. I find boring when I see - or : , and frankly, those, if problems are considerable minor, if compared to his merits.Kafka only uses comparisons extensively in the most boring way. He uses the same word for the same thing three times in one sentence because he chooses to. He uses an incredible amount of 'übrigens' (by the way) and 'doch/ja' (after all). He uses very few expressions. When writing dialogues, he does not change his expressions for 'saying'. He continues with 'sagte K', 'sagte der Wirt', 'sagte K', 'sagte der Wirt' and so forth. He chooses it, it is not that he could not change it. An editor would have problems with that.
And after his death the editors felt pity for him? Do you want a number of great writers who had problem to publish? Who had the majority of works published after life? And please, Kafka barelly submit his works to avaliation. He barelly finished them in first place.Face it, there is a sort of sloppiness in his work which is part of him, but which a serious 19th-early 20ieth century editor would not have accepted. He only got a small number of his work published while living. Most of it was published after his death; Why do you think? Part of the problem was his writing style.
There is some themes in Kafka that repeat but thoyse are irrelevant. How Kafka do it is his merit and he does and it is highly aknowledged by it.His greatest merit, and I do not say 'literary merit' because his language is nothing special, is what is behind his text (impressions v appearances v perception; outsiders in society and reasons; obsessions with administrative organisation; father v son; existentialism of Kierkegaard). That is acknowledged by most as well. That you, as a reader, have to go deeper in order to really enjoy his work, because on the surface there is a sea of words, no more. And mostly such in consistent things that happen that you are at a loss which the bloody hell is happening anyway. In order to preserve your own sanity, you better look at what is behind it.
That is why there is a extensive discussion about the message in Kafka that dates from the 30's. They never had a bigger consensus and you can pick even similar writers like Borges, Eco, Calvino and will see they interpreted the work differently. But hey, I love to be ridiculous, dont you remember? That time when I claimed Kafka had few literary merit...Oh, and you think Koenig and the other company which publishes those companions have no public to sell them to? Their production is only charity no doubt. That companion was one which was used in schools. I looked at them all and they pretty much put the same introductions forward, only written in different wording by another author of course which, for your information, were connected to universities. Those companions are especially marketed towards the school student and written in silmple language.
The claim that no-one knows Kafka's message is utterly ridiculous.
People cannot do it with any text simply because any text does not offer the same depth. Some texts are just superficial, only surface and nothing more. Amongst the deeper texts, there are those which are easier and those which are not so easy to discover.
To simple exercise their reading? They can do with any text. Rowling, Dan Brown, Kafka, Twain, Rapper musics, the daily papper, this thing we write here. That is why libraries do not offer only classical books, they offer any book that will allow the person to continue reading. That has nothing to do with higher interpretation of classical texts.
Do you really think those minor irrelevant detail, hooks as you say, really equate to a deepth in understanding or analyses of a text done inside academies?Any idea why Jane Eyre is so poptular? Because it offers straight away some discussable ideas about women which are obvious and do not require such extensive analysis, secondary texts, philosophy etc. Still, analysis is analysis. As such, if you start on Brontë's view on women for example, then you are doing it. It doesn't need to be difficult in order to be effective. Things become more tricky in terms of Hardy's Tess for example. There you could discuss whether Hardy meant to make her a feeble or strong woman. And that is without becoming feminist because it should be mentioned that neither Jane Eyre nor Tess are not really an argument for raving feminists, despite them having made that of it.
Twain position is quite easily, but saying "Twain disaproves slavery" (a content that should be discovered reading the text) is not a moralization and not even near to a moral discussion of the text.I am with Mutatis if I say that moral messages should not be imposed if they are not inherent to the text. Though, ff Twain disapproved of slavery then that should be taught, and his views on it discovered, the way he does that t the same time, and while doing it, you could discover the concept of satire.
Can you finally tell me what you consider 'literary merit' by the way, as I am now at a loss what you conider it to be if it is not a message/opinion of the author at any time, nor aesthetics...
Literary merit is of course the aesthetics merit, but I am not discussing the systems of aesthetics. It is a red herring taking away from the main theme: Why some books are picked in school and with which objective. I do not need to say what are Shakespeare literary merits to discussion.
Sorry, but this phrase is confuse. Cyrano the author? Cyrano the play? And when did I said anything about teaching to kids in school the literary merit?And then I am also puzzled at what you do with allegories or pieces that are possible but which clearly evoke a theory like Cyrano de Bergerac which despises nice words without contents and mock that idea. If you only teach the literary merit of it, in my mind aesthetics, which is clearly abundant, you might as well not bother as that was clearly not the purpose of the piece.
Did I ever claim there needed to be consensus to discuss something? Consensus is not needed for discussion; even worse, there would be no discussion. The message is not unique.
There are rarely metaphors in his texts. He does not use them. Apart from extended metaphors like Samsa turning into a rodent of some kind (Ungeziefer). Otherwise he uses comparisons. ('as if/als ob...'). Have you ever read him in German?
He did not only write short stories. Far from. And even then, in the German, tradition, his language is very very direct. Though Kleist also wrote some short stories, his language is by far more flowing than Kafka's.
Brod did a lot to persuade publishers to publish Kafka's work. If it wasn't for him and for a few academics claiming great genius (not because of 'literary merit' as amongst Germans here he is considered to be awfully boring and scary), Kafka would not have achieved so great an image. It depends of course how his work is translated, but I did not have great impressions of him.
I said "'reading'", not reading. With Dan Brown there is nothing to practise. It is plot-driven, that is all. 'Reading' on the other hand is different and requires skill. If reading is all that is taught, then it does not surprise me how there are so many posts on the General Literature Forum that are about 'getting' books. People learn to read, but not to 'read'.
Oh, and so analysis is nothing but academic, is it? Really... That is ridiculous and you know it.
So essentially, you do know what it is, but you are refusing to discuss it because it is not relevant to the discussion, tough we have been discussing that for a few posts now. That is at least to be called iffy.
So you did not at all say:
"You do not teach it to kids. When you are trying to educate people and form future readers, not explain literature process with them in first place. A book is read by its literary merits, which implies a greater possibility of interesting the kid and pleasing her. Not because it explains the history of literature."
You definitely imply that the way to interest the kid is reading the book by literary merit, so to educate the child about what is literary merit and how to recognise it. I am at a loss how you do that. You cannot, under no circumstances, demand someone to like something.
And what 'Cyrano the author'? CdB is in italics which means that I am talking about the play. So not confusing. So what do you do with that? The play despises only words and wit. What do you do with it if not teaching the purpose of the play, namely satirising the whole thing, the pastoral, and the 'billets doux de Voiture'? The pastoral side of the play, the love poems, the wit which Roxanne desires above contents? That is clearly pointless.
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
I agree Paul, but it is worth considering if it might be better to just make the kids wait until they are ready for the real thing. If we want a book that just gives the message and plot, then a complete re-write and edit might be nice--just a picture book or something (and teach it when they are learning to read, maybe. Or is that too young?). Once they can read a novel, then I think we may as well wait until they are ready for the real thing.
In an earlier post, I mentioned that there might very well be a temptation to extend this new version's use even into some colleges and universities, or have it in bookstores next to the real one (and probably winning some sales among those casual readers who just think the word is bad, want to do the 'right thing', and haven't considered the other issues, such as author's voice, honesty about history, their personal ability to navigate controversy, slippery slopes, etc.). I don't think the original would ever disappear, of course, or even lose status as the by-far-most-used version, but still...
I think replacing the word "nigger" with "slave" in Huckleberry Finn is a mistake. There are, however, many books that have special children's editions. I have never entirely supported these either.
In the long run I think replacing this controversial pejorative is just another way of hiding from ourselves the racial problems that continue to exist in our country. For me the whole last section of the book in which Tom concocts his elaborate scheme to free Jim by, among other things, digging a tunnel, is far more painful than the author's use of the word "nigger," and which, yes, to me did seem racist, even though I knew the book was a satire. As it is, Huck Finn was among the first books in America to present a black man as a fully rounded character. Perhaps the book is flawed in it's presentation, but I don't think it can be argued that Jim is the heart and soul of the book, the one decent human being of the lot of them. Huck is sympathetic in his moral struggle and does, to my eyes, prevail. In part, Twain was against "book learnin'" as Huck might have called it. He vastly preferred the school of life as an educator and I think this can be seen in the book. He said of Huck Finn that it was "...a book of mine where a sound heart and a deformed conscience come into collision and conscience suffers defeat."
I think whether or not Huck Finn is a racist novel or not will be discussed until the end of time. To me that is not the problem. We look at this book, discuss it's themes, and hopefully we are in the end able to turn it around and ask hard questions of ourselves.
I haven't ever taught Huck Finn, but I have taught To Kill a Mockingbird which uses the "N" word also. My students and I discussed whether or not to read the word as used or gloss over it as I did above. They told me that it didn't bother them, and in the end we did a little of both. I found it surprisingly hard to say.
When I read Huck Finn in college the professor asked the lone African-American student in the class if she found it racist. She did. Even so, or perhaps for that very reason we should continue to read Huck Finn, in and out of the classroom, in its original form. And Uncle Tom's Cabin and Frederick Douglass' slave narrative. There is no end of ways we human beings find to mistreat each other, and literature is one of the best ways I can think of to discuss these various themes, in addition to the fact that they are worthy as literature in and of themselves.
Last edited by qimissung; 01-09-2011 at 04:01 PM. Reason: added a little bit about Twain's intentions in writing the book
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its' own reason for existing." ~ Albert Einstein
"Remember, no matter where you go, there you are." Buckaroo Bonzai "Some people say I done alright for a girl." Melanie Safka
Do not cling in another word: if there is no consensus this imply that people have no clear idea about his message, which imply: people is not reading because of the message Kafka left in his work(if any message at all) but for another reason.
I have not read in german, I have only the understandment of what a metaphor is (which is a kind of comparassion in the end of the day) and that the crawling thing Samsa turns is not one.
He is basically a short story writer. America, Castle, The process are his "novels", Metamorphosis falling on that shadow line between short stories and novels, because of the size. Short stories and texts are the majority of his texts (excluding diaries, aforism, letters) and his longer texts are born from shorter stories he expanded. Also his style is clearly a short story style, derivated from hebrewish parables.He did not only write short stories. Far from. And even then, in the German, tradition, his language is very very direct. Though Kleist also wrote some short stories, his language is by far more flowing than Kafka's.
Ridiculous, Brod did it when Kafka was alive also. The attempt to claim his "lack of literary merit" kept him from publishing while alive when it was ok when he was death, as if his death made him some celebrity is really low.Brod did a lot to persuade publishers to publish Kafka's work. If it wasn't for him and for a few academics claiming great genius (not because of 'literary merit' as amongst Germans here he is considered to be awfully boring and scary), Kafka would not have achieved so great an image. It depends of course how his work is translated, but I did not have great impressions of him.
Trying to imply he is also imposed by academic text is ridiculous and the germans are the first to discover him (much due to gues like Walter Benjamin) who may find him scary but praized his style.
It is pathetic to imply the writer who "taught" Gabriel Garcia Marquez to writer depends on this fake fabrication of him or even near of "great impressions" as if Your opinion can change he runs up as one of the most influential writers of XX century.
It is funny, but this all started because someone is worried with changing a single word and how it would affected reading, and the only reading it can affect is the literal comprehension.I said "'reading'", not reading. With Dan Brown there is nothing to practise. It is plot-driven, that is all. 'Reading' on the other hand is different and requires skill. If reading is all that is taught, then it does not surprise me how there are so many posts on the General Literature Forum that are about 'getting' books. People learn to read, but not to 'read'.
And you can pratice with any text, any form of reading. Dan Brown even, because that is how you perceive how esterile it is.
Are you ignorining the "really equate to a deepth in understanding or analyses " previously on purpose? Are you really trying to transform a question in an afirmation? Really?Oh, and so analysis is nothing but academic, is it? Really... That is ridiculous and you know it.
We have never discussed that. It is irrelevant for the discussion because we are not discussing if Twain have aesthetic merits and just if the book must be taught due their literary merits.So essentially, you do know what it is, but you are refusing to discuss it because it is not relevant to the discussion, tough we have been discussing that for a few posts now. That is at least to be called iffy.
You may have been sliding aside trying to imply the ridiculous notion of Kafka have few liteary merits, but it is not the debate here. If yu want we can all go to the Kafka section for this.
No, I did not said it. I said book is read by its literary merits. Not that kids or anyone need to deeply understand those literary merits. Two completely different things. And it is not even the kids who pick which books they read at school, so I have no idea how you joined the two ideas.So you did not at all say:
"You do not teach it to kids. When you are trying to educate people and form future readers, not explain literature process with them in first place. A book is read by its literary merits, which implies a greater possibility of interesting the kid and pleasing her. Not because it explains the history of literature."
You definitely imply that the way to interest the kid is reading the book by literary merit, so to educate the child about what is literary merit and how to recognise it. I am at a loss how you do that. You cannot, under no circumstances, demand someone to like something.
And you can not, that is why people go for books with high appraisal and literary merits - they have the tendency to be liked and provoke pleasure, but considering it is not matemathical people may dislike them (hence you show to people a broad list, not a narrow).
Funny, I made my sisters read the play and said nothing about it. Apparently, they liked and I have not said a word about being a satyre. There a hundred satyres, Cyrano survives due to its literary merits and surprise, you can read it, like it without even going on about "theory"...And what 'Cyrano the author'? CdB is in italics which means that I am talking about the play. So not confusing. So what do you do with that? The play despises only words and wit. What do you do with it if not teaching the purpose of the play, namely satirising the whole thing, the pastoral, and the 'billets doux de Voiture'? The pastoral side of the play, the love poems, the wit which Roxanne desires above contents? That is clearly pointless.
Thinking when, when I first read it I had no idea about that also... So, how I do. Read. Easy.
Samsa's metamorphosis is an extended metaphor for the simple fact that Samsa is compared to an Ungeziefer, an animal which is not accepted by society as being appropriate, which is desired to be dead, which is considered to be dirty. Is it coming yet? Is your penny dropping?
I never implied that the unique message of a work should be taught. Simply because in most cases there is no unique message. As you are aware, there are always several interpretations possible. Not even all those should be taught, the art of making one should be taught by practice.
It was taught in my school for a whole year.
And so from that you conclude what? I have read short stories in German, am now doing Kleist, and that style is nothing like Kafka. The symbolism, yes, not the use of wording. Kafka did not even know Hebrew, because he had never had a formal Jewish education apart from his Bar Mitzwah (?).
The argument clearly goes past your understanding. If the literal comprehension is affected, then also attempted understanding.
Do you consider analysis to be 'understanding'? I thought that was something totally different.
The fact you are ignoring the question would suggest you actually do not know the answer.
If you are a teacher and you teach books, and read books, by their literary merit then you know what it is. I must have a clear misconception of literary merit and I want to be helped.
On the mere surface, Kafka is not easy flowing, it could be a lot shorter, a lot more edited, a lot less stop and start. It is his style, with brilliant moments (again!), BUT that does not do away with any of the faults which I adress most honestly.
Oh, so literary merit is deeper than the surface. We are getting somewhere.
Easy, yes, that's the word. Still, education is not about it being easy, and neither is reading about 'liking' it alone. Compare it to a present. A present is good when? When it is something you like/want/useful to you. It is not about the decoration on the outside, is it. I may be wrong though. Would you be happy with an empty box that was nicely wrapped up?
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote