<p>I am curious about humans and their motives, but I just think literature is not a good way to go about learning these things. Talking to a range of people who have had diverse experiences and reading accounts of such experiences that make sense upon seeing them for the first time seems to be a much better method of doing this. I will keep an open mind about it, as I like to think I do about everything. Who knows what I will think in five years. Good debate.</p>
<p>Knavish I'm going to be a premed bio major if you're referring to me about the math/science :p.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Videogamer, don't feel sorry for me. I'm not "subjugating myself" in any way by refusing to accept the English class establishment
[/QUOTE]
Point - I clearly separated English classes from literature itself, and admit they are different. I said that I gained the most from reading on my own, and that I had some terrible teachers in the past as well. The problem is, you couldn't possibly know whether you were subjugated or not, because you have not even given literature a fair chance. If you ever become a bit more mature, and learn to appreciate literature, you will realize this.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
and the notion that making points about life in a roundabout, confusing way is somehow more noble than saying them outright.
[/QUOTE]
The only way it will become clear, without confusion, is to read it. Yes, that is a Catch-22, but it is true. At first, you might pick up on maybe a tenth of the full message. But the more you learn, progressively it gets easier.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
As I said in my original post, people like to feel that they are smarter than your average Joe, and I do believe that a significant portion of people who pretend to understand the value of literature do so to make others think they are smart.
[/QUOTE]
That is definitely true, most people are liars in this matter. However, the reader himself knows his own honesty, and learns for learning, not to impress others. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
They see some hidden meaning not apparent in any form at first reading, so others begin to think something is wrong with their understanding.
[/QUOTE]
What is wrong with questioning your own understanding? That is the path to higher knowledge. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Analysis in history is much different than analysis in literature. In history, you take facts and go one step further with them into WHY things turned out the way they did. In literature, you take some completely arbitrary piece of writing and draw conclusions about what it really means. You must start at some logical base before trying to analyze anything. In literature, this base simply does not exist.
[/QUOTE]
As with history, the elements of a book can be analyzed, where you question the reasoning for the placement of events. The logical base is your own experiences and your prior readings. It is not 'magic,' you must study and build upon your knowledge.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, you must learn a large amount of information before the various disciplines begin to converge into simply thought, and a deficit in a particular area, such as literature, limits the overall growth and expansion, hindering any type of learning.</p>
<p>I wanted to edit my last post, but 20 minutes past and I couldn't update it so ignore it with this in its place:</p>
<p>Knavish I'm going to be a premed bio major if you're referring to me about the math/science :p.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Videogamer, don't feel sorry for me. I'm not "subjugating myself" in any way by refusing to accept the English class establishment
[/QUOTE]
Point - I clearly separated English classes from literature itself, and admit they are different. I said that I gained the most from reading on my own, and that I had some terrible teachers in the past as well. The problem is, you couldn't possibly know whether you were subjugated or not, because you have not even given literature a fair chance. If you ever become a bit more mature, and learn to appreciate literature, you will realize this.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
and the notion that making points about life in a roundabout, confusing way is somehow more noble than saying them outright.
[/QUOTE]
The only way it will become clear, without confusion, is to read it. Yes, that is a Catch-22, but it is true. At first, you might pick up on maybe a tenth of the full message. But the more you learn, progressively it gets easier.</p>
<p>There is a difference between the literal and the figurative, as I hope to demonstrate:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>A train drives towards a broken bridge into a canyon.</p></li>
<li><p>Crawling cursed towards its damned destination, the lumbering chariot plunges to its sodden necropolis amidst walls of gravel ever towering. Water, deceptively soft, as the carrion of aged marine legions, pulverizes the once-hardened exoskeleton with apathetic nautical gluttony. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Perhaps my biases and limitations as a writer obscure my point, but again I hope it illustrates that there exists beyond simple facts a more pleasant, poetic, noble, and informative, but less quantifiable, way to look at life, while oddly offering more to analyze. To clarify, I don't mean to condemn quantifiable pursuits, notably science or math, but isolated they offer very little, just as any area taken out of context bears the same property, including literature. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
As I said in my original post, people like to feel that they are smarter than your average Joe, and I do believe that a significant portion of people who pretend to understand the value of literature do so to make others think they are smart.
[/QUOTE]
That is definitely true, most people are liars in this matter. However, the reader himself knows his own honesty, and learns for learning, not to impress others. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
They see some hidden meaning not apparent in any form at first reading, so others begin to think something is wrong with their understanding.
[/QUOTE]
What is wrong with questioning your own understanding? That is the path to higher knowledge. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Analysis in history is much different than analysis in literature. In history, you take facts and go one step further with them into WHY things turned out the way they did. In literature, you take some completely arbitrary piece of writing and draw conclusions about what it really means. You must start at some logical base before trying to analyze anything. In literature, this base simply does not exist.
[/QUOTE]
As with history, the elements of a book can be analyzed, where you question the reasoning for the placement of events. The logical base is your own experiences and your prior readings. It is not 'magic,' you must study and build upon your knowledge.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, you must learn a large amount of information before the various disciplines begin to converge into simply thought (or at least to an anticipatory degree, actual achievement in this regard is likely impossible), and a deficit in a particular area, such as literature, limits the overall growth and expansion, hindering any type of learning.</p>
<p>i read the first page and pretty much skimmed everyone else but i don't think anybody really brought up the idea of changing the english literature curriculum in english classes.</p>
<p>i think that instead of reading outdated classics, which most of us can't and really shouldn't have to understand. Instead, along with learning grammer and writing skills which we all agree are a necesity, we should read modern works, works we can understand an relate too.</p>
<p>classic literature is still important, but to me, in an historical way as it is part of culture. but it's study should be left to a select few, and not to the masses.</p>
<p>on another note i recently read the book "The World is Flat" by Thomas Freidman which does not say anything directly about the topic, but did raise doubts in my mind yet again about why so much time should be spent studying english and history in the US when we are so far behind in math and science, compared to other countries. A country's proficiency in these two subjects is ultimately what will make it powerful in the long run.</p>
<p>So while I agree there is definite use in studying history and english, for the reasoning skills and for a better understanding of our world, i think the focus needs to be put more on the skills that REALLY matter.</p>
<p>What is really useful to America? College graduates who can understand Homer or college graduates who can create an alternative fuel?</p>
<p>video-gamerX, I don't think going around calling others anti-intellectuals is very intellectual.</p>