Great fiction or just crap?

[Terralthra]

Excellent post. Not only is it clear, but it's ruthlessly honest. I've come across my share of English teachers who were plain wrong, yet start bullshitting when you call them on it. I've also come across hypocritical English teachers who scorn standard essay writing yet reward it with A's. Really does make you fill with mirthless laughter.

On the flip-side, we spent a few weeks dissecting Star Wars for what it was: an extreme mash-up (read: theft) of Shakespearean themes. I was a bit disappointed that we didn't also hit on the other themes Lucas cobbled together from stuff like Japanese epics and Bushido, but Shakespeare has to be the end-all.

Many of the themes of the heroic journey Lucas takes predate Shakespeare significantly. Lucas comes right out and says that the plots of IV-VI are cribbed extensively from the Hero's Journey archetype written extensively about by Campbell, which means Star Wars goes all the way back to Gilgamesh for its roots.

Personally, I'd claim that this is because Romeo and Juliet isn't a love story; it's a tragedy about how the two families destroy what they most hold dear through their feud.

I don't think it's a love story either, but point taken. I just get so fucking tired of people talking up the interaction between R and J as the end-all to true love. Maybe kids back then had that kind of grasp of language. But I remember "sweet nothings" between hormonal teenagers in high school. It was much closer to what we saw in Episode 2 between Padme and Anakin: excruciatingly painful to listen to and extremely trite.

Shakespeare, when writing the romance scenes, drew specifically on contemporaneous sources on what courtship should look like and what sort of language they should use. Romeo's use of metaphor in the masquerade scene, for example, is practically out of a "how to flirt with your noble crush" book.

In my generation, we had "Can't Hardly Wait" where some dumpy loser writes a letter to his crush (who he hasn't spoken two words to in... ever) and they fall madly in love during the last 5 minutes because.... reasons. I always took away from that (annoyingly boring) movie that high school is bullshit and doesn't matter. Others (like the girl I went and saw it with because I'm an idiot) decided it was the most romantic thing ever and the complete point of the movie. Also, the dick jokes, which were pretty funny (ah, Seth Green, you loveable loser).

On the other hand, there is "Ten Things I Hate About You," a Shakespeare remake.

[spaceviking]

I never liked 'The Great Gatsby". I could never really get engrossed in the story, it seemed like the author was more concerned in coming off as a talented writer than telling an engrossing story.

On the Shakespeare subject, I remember my English teacher acting like I had some great insights into the texts. In actually just read the 'notes to the text' that were included in everyone's book, and based my responses on that information.

[Darth Holbytlan]

...his is the most referenced of any in English literature second only to the Bible that justifies teaching it.

The Bible isn't exactly "English literature," to begin with, but I take your point. =]

Touché. I should have said "The King James Version of the Bible".

Personally, I'd claim that this is because Romeo and Juliet isn't a love story; it's a tragedy about how the two families destroy what they most hold dear through their feud.

I don't think it's a love story either, but point taken. I just get so fucking tired of people talking up the interaction between R and J as the end-all to true love. Maybe kids back then had that kind of grasp of language. But I remember "sweet nothings" between hormonal teenagers in high school. It was much closer to what we saw in Episode 2 between Padme and Anakin: excruciatingly painful to listen to and extremely trite.

Treating R&J as a good love story gets on my nerves, too. Not so much for the "good" part but for the "love story" part—hence my previous post. I wonder if the fact that R&J mostly gets taught to students is responsible for this? Read R&J when your own emotional development is no further along than the two protagonists and it might seem to be a deep and meaningful love story.

I actually don't mind Shakespeare. Any man who can come up with that many dick joke/sex puns and euphemisms is a hero in my book. I even bothered re-reading Macbeth and Hamlet after the fact (so I could actually enjoy them).

I don't mind him, either, I just don't find him nearly as enjoyable as his reputation promises[1][2]—probably because I miss most of the references due to changes in language and context. Case in point:

Shakespeare, when writing the romance scenes, drew specifically on contemporaneous sources on what courtship should look like and what sort of language they should use. Romeo's use of metaphor in the masquerade scene, for example, is practically out of a "how to flirt with your noble crush" book.

This is something that I flat out didn't know, but it doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm sure that reading some of these sources would increase my enjoyment of R&J quite a bit.

---

[1] Which really says as much about his reputation as my opinion of him.
[2] Excepting possibly The Comedy of Errors, which has been permanently elevated, or perhaps twisted, in my mind thanks to the Flying Karamazov Brothers.

[Terralthra]

Shakespeare, when writing the romance scenes, drew specifically on contemporaneous sources on what courtship should look like and what sort of language they should use. Romeo's use of metaphor in the masquerade scene, for example, is practically out of a "how to flirt with your noble crush" book.

This is something that I flat out didn't know, but it doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm sure that reading some of these sources would increase my enjoyment of R&J quite a bit.

For further information, see The Book of the Courtier by Baldassare Castiglione. Written in 1528, translated to English not too long after. Widely known and praised in England at the time Shakespeare was writing, and widely regarded as an influence on Shakespeare's writing of courtier/noble types.

[hongi]

Catcher in the Rye: I don't give a holler about Holden Caufield calling everybody phony. This guy I regard as just an anti-social idiot with no 'great meaning' to it. Holden is just an abnormal introvert and it's plain abnormal for somebody to be analyzing this idiot with the hopes of learning something. I could analyze my dusty VCR and come up with a greater epiphany than I could from observing this book.

Argue for it. What is abnormal about Holden? Why do you think he is an introvert? Why is it plain abnormal for somebody to be analyzing this idiot with the hopes of learning something?

This is what I did in English. What did you do?

[Thanas]

Shakespeare, when writing the romance scenes, drew specifically on contemporaneous sources on what courtship should look like and what sort of language they should use. Romeo's use of metaphor in the masquerade scene, for example, is practically out of a "how to flirt with your noble crush" book.

This is something that I flat out didn't know, but it doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm sure that reading some of these sources would increase my enjoyment of R&J quite a bit.

For further information, see The Book of the Courtier by Baldassare Castiglione. Written in 1528, translated to English not too long after. Widely known and praised in England at the time Shakespeare was writing, and widely regarded as an influence on Shakespeare's writing of courtier/noble types.

It is not just the romance scenes, the fight scenes are heavily influenced by the current Italian masters of the day.

[Darth Holbytlan]

For further information, see The Book of the Courtier by Baldassare Castiglione. Written in 1528, translated to English not too long after. Widely known and praised in England at the time Shakespeare was writing, and widely regarded as an influence on Shakespeare's writing of courtier/noble types.

Thanks! I'll have to check that out.

[Zixinus]

Here's a small insight: other nationalities with their own language do this too.

You are expected to be able to name several poems written by Petőfi Sándor, Arany János, Vörösmarty Mihály, Kölcsey Ferenc, etc. Teachers outright said and repeated that "You are not a Hungarian if you cannot recite [insert one very nationalistic poem from one of the above] in its entirety". That is not quite accident, some of these (particularly Petőfi) were actively politically. Sometimes their other, non-nationalistic works are also brought up, but it is their great national poems that's the first thing children meet.

The same attitude carries over to novels. You have to read this and that, and I resented that they were mandatory. It was especially aggravating when the language is old or pre- language standardization as to be incomprehensible. Some books were written specifically for the noble gentry, who actually wanted a book to be long as possible because they have lots of free time. Other stories were raw expressions of sentimental recollection. One story I actually read through and vaguely remember, "Pál utcai fiuk" was about children gangs (something that was to me utterly strange) and how things could go wrong between them. Other was also strange to me, "Kincskereső kis ködmön" was about an imaginative boy, seeking treasure while simply living in a rural village.
I wouldn't read what was supposed to be mandatory reading now, even those that I skipped (and I skipped lots, they rarely really cared whether we read them as long as you could tell the opinion of whatever was in the textbook and the eventual test).

The thing is, what gets selected and taught in schools and lauded as "greatest literary works in our language" is always a mix. Some were just very relevant to their time and very popular, some were just their own thing, some were just what a writer would write to make a living in that time, some were picked because academics making the decisions thought of them as being elevated, etc. And yes, there are probably some works that are called "great" out of sheer snobbery.

What are and were "greats" in literature is also problematic due to cultural shift. In Hungary became part of the Soviet union, past literature was suddenly radically reevaluated according to ideas of class struggles. Suddenly the best works of literature were those that authentically described what was supposed to be the Hungarian every-man, the peasant (Hungarians have a paradoxical relationship with that idea). This shift was so big and sudden that even modern (well, ones I read) textbooks for children often focus and point out the class-nature of the work.

Overall, maybe the best thing to do about the topic is just not take literature too seriously.

[hongi]

I wouldn't read what was supposed to be mandatory reading now, even those that I skipped (and I skipped lots, they rarely really cared whether we read them as long as you could tell the opinion of whatever was in the textbook and the eventual test).

This is precisely why I came to value the texts I came to read.

I got to read poets like János Pilinszky. Do you think I, an Australia, would ever have read him otherwise? For English, we watched Blade Runner and Dark City and Schindler's List (we didn't skip over the nudity at all), we read works like Brave New World, 1984, Animal Farm. I read A Doll's House by Ibsen. I got to read Shakespeare, who I absolutely adore. I'm confident in saying that if I hadn't read him then, I wouldn't keep reading him now.

Maybe my high school English department was just plain awesome, but it encouraged critical thinking and most importantly, interest in what we were studying.

[Lagmonster]

Difference in generations. You probably didn't go to school during one of the many returning phases of "Emphasize STEM, otherwise we'll never be awesome as a nation".

No shit. We actually had some low-level govnermnent so-and-so do a presentation at our elementary school where he basically gave a pep rally for Canadian innovation and to study math so we could trounce Japan in the Big Game or something...hockey related? It was a long time ago. There was a lot of subtle racism involved, is what I remember.

[Vehrec]

John Green, come forth and defend The Catcher in the Rye!

[JLTucker]

Maybe my high school English department was just plain awesome, but it encouraged critical thinking and most importantly, interest in what we were studying.

Thisins the rub. I think it all depends on who you have as a teacher. I had only one high school lit teacher who was worth anything in regards to reading assignments. He assigned us stuff that made us think. Heart of Darkness comes to mind. Unfortunately, he did not prep us for university-level writing, and that's a huge problem. I fear that that's a problem the OP may have faced and why he has such disdain for subjective matter.

[Zixinus]

Maybe my high school English department was just plain awesome, but it encouraged critical thinking and most importantly, interest in what we were studying.

Most teachers here do not have any such lofty ambitions. I had only one I remember as really great and I switched schools away from him. In fact, my experience was that teachers focused on the curriculum and to get us through the Érettségi.

I think an important component for me was that I was always bilingual, more or less. Because for most other students through school could read novels translated from English or old Hungarian novels (the most popular author was Rejtő Jenő, who lived between world wars). I could choose to read English novels without problems (some were harder than most, like Lord of the Rings) while most of my schoolmates were stuck with the above.

But do you know what's sad? Pilinszky János's name, a Hungarian, doesn't make me recall anything. I remember that we were taught quite a few of the Nyugat's writers, but his name and the name of a few of his poems draws a complete blank. He might have been mentioned, but I recall nothing of him in the literature textbooks I read through. I recall a few other names, looking up the Nyugat's history, but not him.

[Atlan]

Macbeth: I didn't like this. Macbeth, urged by his wife, kills the king and is guilty about it. So what? Yeah, power tempts people and some might feel guilty. . Many killers in real life don't feel guilty about their actions: most gangbangers don't give a hoot about killing someone; matter of fact, they probably use it as bragging rights.

Might I suggest an easy way to see if you really like or not like Shakespeare?

Go and watch a play. The man didn't write books, he wrote plays. You're not supposed to read it, you're supposed to watch it. Yes, he was important for the English language, but the most enjoyment I ever got out of him was when our teacher made us ACT OUT some of the scenes. Which is of course what the scenes were all about: To be acted out, not to be read.

It's like critisising a movie because you thought the script was dull reading.

[Channel72]

It's difficult to actually assess the usefulness of reading literature from the "Western canon". We've all had to go through it, and to some extent a lot of us resent it because it was difficult and boring at the time. As an adult, I work as a computer programmer, so my familiarity with Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Fitzgerald and Salinger is somewhat... um, useless on a daily basis.

But if I were faced with the choice of deleting this knowledge in return for say, a significant monetary compensation, I don't think I'd actually take the money - (unless we're talking millions of dollars here). I value this knowledge because I think it makes me a more interesting person, and it contributes to some extent to my overall perspective and personality. Unfortunately, it's difficult to quantify this vague sentiment, and I'm not entirely sure that, for example, had Shakespeare never existed, our current world would be any worse, nor am I sure if there is any long-term social benefit to continuously teaching this literature generation after generation.

That said, I always sort of liked Catcher in the Rye. And seriously, come on - Shakespeare is awesome.

[TheFeniX]

Shakespeare, when writing the romance scenes, drew specifically on contemporaneous sources on what courtship should look like and what sort of language they should use. Romeo's use of metaphor in the masquerade scene, for example, is practically out of a "how to flirt with your noble crush" book.

So, was this considered as trite back then as current teenagers ramblings are today? I know puns were hot shit back in Shakespeare's time, so there's always the period to take into account. I would assume young nobles were much better educated than hicks from Texas.

On the other hand, there is "Ten Things I Hate About You," a Shakespeare remake.

I loved that movie even if I don't like Julia Stiles. And it shows how you can update the setting for a modern audience. But watching the DiCaprio Romeo and Juliet was a huge waste even though I remembered him from Quick and the Dead (and being awesome) and Leguizamo stole the entire fucking movie.

It's difficult to actually assess the usefulness of reading literature from the "Western canon". We've all had to go through it, and to some extent a lot of us resent it because it was difficult and boring at the time. As an adult, I work as a computer programmer, so my familiarity with Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Fitzgerald and Salinger is somewhat... um, useless on a daily basis.

For me, it's the overemphasis and smashing my head against the wall because I speed read and doing that with Shakespeare literally gives me headaches (I have the same problem with Tolkien, which is why I never finished LOTR). There were innumerable books we read that I consider myself a "better person" for having read, but they tend to be much more current. Works like Animal Farm, Brave New World, and 1984 to name a few. Also of note was Lord of the Flies and..... shit, it's counter-part (the kids are "good") where they rescue the Buffalo. Damn I'm getting old. Books my wife never got the chance to read because she went to an even shittier ISD than I did.

Hell, I didn't read Art of War until college because it was too controversial for High School. I consider that a disservice. I think English should concern itself more with getting kids to read a large amount of content, even if the testing suffers, rather than focusing on smaller content for better test scores. But that dog won't hunt. Instead we beat on a piece of literature for weeks (forcing students to read slower, so they can pass a test on that section), losing the cohesiveness. At least that's how it worked at my school.

We'd be much better off having kids write up stuff and the teacher ask "did you at least try to understand this work and write a decent paper on it's themes? Good call: A+, let's move on." Not: "Can you remember hark what light through yonder window breaks, it is the sun and I never fucking cared enough to memorize this scene so fuck you."

[Thanas]

What is ISD?


In my experience, the number of books read is more important than what is read (provided it is actually quality instead of pop novels).

[TheFeniX]

Independent School District. Which is why school programs in America (outside federal requirements) can vary so much even when two of them are right next to each other. The states obviously impose their own standards (and use funding as a way to ensure compliance), which explains why the Texas Board of Education's rampant stupidity can fuck the entire state (and country since Texas buys so many Textbooks, they can set the tone for everyone).

[Edi]

You usually need to know the reason why something is studied. Shakespeare is more important in English for his impact on the language in general than for anything else. Haven't read many of the American novels considered great and have no interest in doing so for the most part. In Finnish class we had to read several books that were historically important and some of them were really fucking dull. Important in their social impact and historical take at the time of their writing, but a whole lot less relevant a hundred years later.

If you know the context and why it was important at the time, might make reading it a bit more palatable, or at least something to get through even if you don't like it. And like Thanas says, the number of books is important, if you have read extensively, it gives you a lot more perspective.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I never had a problem with Shakespeare, it was entertaining enough, because we had a teacher who could get us interested and involved. Which was good. We did Macbeth and Animal Farm just before GCSEs and that was awesome.

Then we hit GCSE itself and, well, I liked the whole idea I just think they chose really bad works to look at. We had "The Old Man and the Sea" which was, objectively, a well-written book, but our teacher kept pressing us to find "deeper meanings" which we simply weren't interested enough to find. We followed that with "Far From the Madding Crowd" which was a nightmare. The language was dense and tortuous, the plot was uninteresting and the characters were annoying. Of all the books they coudl have chosen to keep a class of thirty 15 year old boys (single-sex school) engaged, they chose that piece of crap.

We also had the huge section on WW1 poetry, and again, it was "find the deeper meaning" when the meaning was plain: war is hell/we shouldn't force young men to die for old men's causes/and so on, but that (quite reasonable) answer was never enough. To test my teacher I threw together a fairly generic "im a soldier, woe is me" poem and asked her who she thought wrote it. She spent ages carefully analysing it before declaring "I dont know who but definitely written in 1917." A facepalm ensued.

My main point is this: if you have a good teacher and works that the class finds interesting enough to engage with, English Literature classes can be great. The key there is "interesting works" and a big part of that is knowing your audience. Had I been picking works, I woudl have picked something like the divine comedy or Paradise Lost instead of Far From the Madding Crowd.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Learning to find themes and other deep meanings in stories is actually a really great tool, though, not only for better appreciation of fiction but also to help with understanding things in reality, too.

I think everyone hated all of the books we were made to read in high school to try to find themes and that is a bad sign. Not that we shouldn't be taught that sort of thing, but that how it's being taught isn't working if it goes through to so few people. I didn't start to get into that level of thought about fiction until I was in my 20s, I mean, and unless I'm an outlier that's way too late in life to be learning this skill.

[JLTucker]

Learning to find themes and other deep meanings in stories is actually a really great tool, though, not only for better appreciation of fiction but also to help with understanding things in reality, too.

I think everyone hated all of the books we were made to read in high school to try to find themes and that is a bad sign. Not that we shouldn't be taught that sort of thing, but that how it's being taught isn't working if it goes through to so few people. I didn't start to get into that level of thought about fiction until I was in my 20s, I mean, and unless I'm an outlier that's way too late in life to be learning this skill.

I think a big problem is that we have parents who don't encourage their children to read. You have a bunch of high school kid who don't want to read anything because they were never encouraged to as a child. When they read something that they don't want to, the level of their analysis may reflect their disinterest in reading. Then they have kids and the cycle continues.

Maybe there's a problem with how analysis is introduced to students. I remember learning about symbolism, metaphor, allegories, archetypes etc. throughout high school, but it never really sank in until I reached my 20s.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I and many of my friends read very regularly outside class from childhood and all of us hated the stuff we had to read for class, but we also read trash fiction as a rule. But we still all thought it was better than those "classics" we were made to read.

So I don't think too much of it is not reading at all. I think there's something else there missing or going wrong.

[Channel72]

I think we're all over-analyzing things here. The basic problem is that the average teenager is an ignorant dickhead who doesn't give a shit about anything, except video games, sex, and climbing an ephemeral adolescent social hierarchy. Ethical dilemmas in Tsarist Russia, or the alienation of peasants in pre-revolutionary France don't exactly register as relevant or even remotely interesting. I wasn't really able to appreciate most of the literature I was forced to read until later in my early to mid twenties, after my life experience consisted of more than simply going to class, masturbating, and playing Street Fighter.

[Gaidin]

At the same time we also have video game developers trying to break the proverbial glass ceiling for good fiction. Albeit interactive fiction, which is quite a bit harder to do than straight fiction.