<p>Could somebody please tell me the answer to the above question? I am NOT talking about teaching proper grammar, which is of great importance and should be stressed more given that so few adults seem to have it. However, I just can't understand why middle school, high school, and college students are forced to study "classic" literature. </p>
<p>I am talking about ALL forms of literature too, from ancient Greek works all the way up to writings from the 1970's (which seems to be the latest they go, for some reason). To me, all "conclusions" garnered from discussions of the "themes" and "messages" of these books draw self-evident truths that I knew even before I cracked the book open.</p>
<p>Take Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde for instance. It is extremely overwritten, almost as bad as Dickens, and has really no story other than people desparately trying to figure out what has happened to Jekyll, even though it's pretty obvious about a third of the way through it. The main message here is supposedly that "everyone has two sides to their personality: good and bad." Really? I always people were always 100% angelic or 100% evil. Gosh, they're BOTH?! And, AT THE SAME TIME TOO?! Yippee!!!</p>
<p>Seriously, what's the point here? I can't help but think people who "analyze" literature do so to sound smart and make themselves out to be better than others because they can find some obscure hidden meaning most people wouldn't notice. If you want to say something in a book, have the guts to come right out and say it, and don't veil it behind all kinds of figurative nonsense that requires 30 people working together for an hour to figure out.</p>
<p>Okay, thanks for reading. I just wanted to vent. I'll go see if I have a flame-retardant suit anywhere handy right about now...</p>
<p>I think the reason that we study literature, even if the "message" may be self-evident, is that it makes the message more human. Literature takes the message, makes it more human, and clarifies it in relation to humans and to other concepts and messages. If all important messages could be clearly articulated in literal statements, there would be no disagreement. The reality is that humanity and real understanding defies literal description.</p>
<p>That was a little abstract and cheesy, I know. But I think you know essentially what I mean.</p>
<p>I actually heard a literature professor try to defend why we study literature, and he started out by telling one of Aesop's fables. He then pointed out that each one of the fables has two parts- the fable, and the moral. He then posed the question, why didn't he just write a book of morals? Aren't the fables just expounding on something that can be summed up in one sentence? And then he pointed out that literature doesn't even tell you what the moral is, it just has the fable, which takes it even farther. But, for some reasons I talk about above (he was much more eloquent about it), he explained that the fable is, in fact, equally as important as the moral at the end.</p>
<p>Of course, you raise a just question. Anyone who flames you for this thread is probably closed-minded and intellectually righteous. All my answers are pretty touchy-feely. And indeed, a whole lot of literary analysis, especially in high school classes, is just "intellectual" bullsh</p>
<p>That sort of makes sense, that literature expounds on a simple idea. I still don't really get why that much elaboration is needed, though. To use your example, I believe a book of morals would be just as helpful in guiding people as to how they should act. Sure, the different stories "humanize" the morals, but do you really need to see examples (which, in this case, are fantastical to begin with) of some idea before you can appreciate it, especially when such ideas are as basic as Aesop's morals?</p>
<p>I always thought Aesop's Fables was more of a children's book than high literature anyway. Some of them are actually quite good stories for kids that also teach them good life lessons. The stories are enjoyable, but that doesn't mean they are necessary to drive the point home. Besides, I was referring more to the "intellectual" discussions in high school you mention in my original post.</p>
<p>We study English so we can read and write effectively. Nothing in school that we learn is directly applicable in a beneficial way. But, in the process of mundane learning, such as analyzing literature, we re-enforce the basic skills of reading, writing, computation, and thinking/problem-solving. Even when we go on to college, that's really all were doing, re-enforcing the basics. </p>
<p>Literature re-enforces the basics by introducing us to different ways of reading and writing. Literature exists from human logic, key component of reading, writing, and any other necessary skill. How else would you understand a complicated plot or determine whether or not your ideas on paper will be understood without developing sound logic. By studying Literature, your developing logical thought processes and conclusions. Literature is not about themes and perspectives but exercising logic. No matter what you do in life you need logical reasoning to succeed.</p>
<p>Reading literature teaches you how to think. Regardless of WHAT you learn (themes, morals, etc), it is discovering HOW to learn that is most important.</p>
<p>Education is what is left when you've forgotten everything that you've learned, that is, how to think.</p>
<p>Most of what English teachers or people who pretend to understand high literature say about it doesn't follow any logical process I could ever comprehend. People seem to "analyze" these things with preconceived notions of what they should contain, and make conclusions from there. That's certainly not using good logic.</p>
<p>To cherrybarry:</p>
<p>Someone always says in this debate that literature "teaches how to learn" or, even better, "how to think." WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Learning, to me, is essentially digesting what you hear and see into standards of what to expect in certain situations. Saying that some book has a certain hidden meaning totally not apparent while reading it at first has nothing to do with creating such standards. If anything, it defies learning as a process since each person's intrepretation of literature is usually very different.</p>
<p>The benefit of literature is that you don't have to depend on your teachers to exercise your own logic. Just the fact that you are questioning the study of literature, or other people's preconceived notion of literature, you are exercisicing your reasoning. Well, you ask what is reasoning and what role does Literature play? I'll tell you. </p>
<p>Reasoning/thinking is the process of getting from point A to point B in the most efficient way, coming up with the most applicable, practical conclusion from the given situation or facts. The main ingredient of reasoning is being practical. It has to make sense. Good literature, not the mediocrity we're forced to read in school, makes sense but the reader has to understand how and why before appreciating GOOD literature. Since most of literature is carved from life, making sense of it means making sense of life, believe or not (which in your case, not, lol). When readers understand how and why GOOD Literature (Not the crap that was written two or three centuries ago) makes sense, why certain conlusions can be made from given facts, they develop reasoning.</p>
<p>You are right. A lot of the older classics are bombastic and inflated with excessive print. Writers are human, but contemporary teachers tend to overidolize ones of former centuries to the point where every phrase supposedly dissembles secret, powerful meaning. </p>
<p>Literature in GENERAL, though, is different. I love the likes of Dahl (his adult stories are amazing), Steinbeck, Bradbury, and countless others but some of that Victorian shat is unbearable. </p>
<p>The biggest problem is that unfortunately, many English teachers don't know sh1t about real life due to such a cloistered, romantic, and often conceited study as literature and a lot of the bs carries on into the classroom. Let us study greats like Hemingway, and not pansy oldies like Hawethorne.</p>
<p>well i'm tired and can't really think right now, but i just think literature deserves to die...a little exagerration, but my thoughts are pretty simple right now, so bear with me. i agree with simpsnut14 and anyone else who thinks literature is basically pointless most of the time. language and composition isnt, but lit is. its so retarded that so many english people (subject wise, not actual british people, though they are included) have taken centuries to figure these o so important hidden meanings that dont matter in REAL life. half the time english people dont agree. and what if thats not even what the author meant. in fact, i remember writing a short story in eng class and the teacher loved it and read it to the class. i was absent that day he read it and they discussed my "hidden meaning", which i didnt have or mean to show. when i heard all their ideas of what the story REALLY meant i started laughing and told them i just made it up to get an A. and then i went on this long rant about how pointless lit was and why and blah blah blah. </p>
<p>lit is fine for entertainment if you like that, but its a damn crime they MAKE us take it in high school. it should be an elective or something.
its so freakin overrated. i actually had an ongoing battle with my history and english teachers during my senior year about why i believed science and math (as a pair) were more important and beneficial than history and english (as a pair) inside and outside of school. all they could come up with was "without english, you wouldnt have a way to write down your ideas or talk". what the hell. thats the only bs they could come up with. thats the gayest reason. i wasn't even talking about technicalities like that. i meant the whole effect of teaching and learning the subject and which meant more to humanity. but they were teachers so of course they were right. the funny thing is when i tried to get some math or science teachers into it, they would just shake their heads and say, "well they have some good reasoning behind it." but it was pretty obvious they KNEW math was more important, they just let the english teachers vent.</p>
<p>anyway im just rambling now. so uhhh yeah....i agree lit sucks. umm sorry i couldn't give a more educated and coherent point of view but i'm really tired and going to fall asleep right about n.....</p>
<p>
[quote]
its so retarded that so many english people (subject wise, not actual british people, though they are included) have taken centuries to figure these o so important hidden meanings that dont matter in REAL life.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I love literature, but once, my English teacher informed us about how scholars have worked for centuries trying to figure out who the third murderer in Macbeth is. I said something like, "How about trying to solve REAL murders?" People in my class thought it was really funny.</p>
<p>I am COMPLETELY with you on this one. every time i have to read an english book i feel tortured by the author. WHY cant he just straight out give his message. thats why i love sparknotes. its so simple and straight-forward. if there is one thing that ****es me off is how four years of english are required at my school. why cant it be 4 years of math or science. it just has to be the subject i despise the most. evil english. i HATE HATE HATE HATE literature/english/books/authors.....</p>
<p>"why cant it be 4 years of math or science."</p>
<p>I'm totally with you, The_Who. At my school, students are required to take 4 years of English (not surprising, isn't it?), and just 2 years of science! I personally think that learning biology, chemistry, and physics are much useful in your life than analyzing what this author is trying to say in this 500-page book. Even though you're not going to major in science or anything, I think science is all over in the world we live and at least everybody should know basic biology, chemistry, and physics. Imagine the world where people are saying "BAN DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE!" scine they read this: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=79020%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=79020</a></p>
<p>Well, I might be saying this just because I'm a huge fan of science and math. But what I thought ridiculous was when we were taking sample benchmark reading test, my English teacher didn't even know which one was the answer (it was a multiple choice question)! Hello? How are we supposed to get the right answer if she had hard time determining whether b or d is the right answer? What annoys me more is that I thought we all have different interpretation of things we read, so it SHOULDN'T be just one right answer to choose. Or am I just plain wrong?</p>
<p>But I don't know, I might be saying this because I'm not a huge fan of English classes. I think reading good books are fascinating and I enjoy it, but I think it's a "crime to make us take it."</p>
<p>I love English, but I do agree that schools should require four years of math and science in addition to English. In today's world, math and science are pivotal for success and progress. This is where the money is.</p>
<p>I love math and science, but I dont think everyone should suffer through 4 years of it. for many it serves no purpose. as much as I hate (boring) English, I see the purpose of having it for 4 years. Otherwise, many student's writing skills will massively deteriorate by the time they go to college. Imagine not writing a single paper for 3 years and being told to write a 4 page paper the first week of college.</p>
<p>agree with you all though that classics are often inapplicable to life and that english classes should expand their book selection.</p>
<p>It seems my viewpoint is more popular than I thought. I figured I would have to fight off insulted English majors/lovers. It's nice to know not everyone buys into the myth of "good literature."</p>
<p>In H/S much of what you study is useless. For example, mathematics. Mathematics is great but in HS where most of the teachers just make it a passive game of memorizing formulas you're really not learning anything. In fact, many HS math teachers don't have the slightest idea of what they are talking about. And in English where many teachers just make it reading books and writing superficial reports, it's useless.
However, once you get to college and take a math or english class from a professor who knows what he's doing, you'll learn to appreciate it because there will be something to appreciate.</p>
<p>"HS math teachers don't have the slightest idea of what they are talking about."</p>
<p>OMG, that is so true. I've never had someone who's considered as a "good" math teacher in my life. Well, I've only taken up to algebra II for now, so I can't really say anything. But I totally agree that they "just make it a passive game of memorizing formulas" by giving homework from the book w/o really reading the question.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I liked my English teacher; I think my writing level had increased significantly by taking her class. However, I really thought it was useless when we were discussing what hidden messages are there in one short story for 80 minutes. It was horrible because I couldn't come up with anything so all I had to do is listen to what other thinks and see the teacher nodding her head. Yeah, I tried, and I actually gave my thought for once, but her response was like "ok... anybody else?" If she thinks I'm wrong or pointless, why doesn't she tell so and why? It was really stressful for me to just end up that kind of response, and the way I think about literature in generally had gotten worse... Of course, it was my fault that I gave a pointless thought, though.</p>