EA Younker recently had a new addition to her house, a young man named Tech, who struggles with reading. EA makes some pretty valid points - you need to be able to read to get a driver's licence and a job, but why is literature pushed so heavily in school? I clearly understand the need for people to communicate well in writing. However, is there validity to people questioning why they are required to read Shakespeare, Dickens, or any of the other "classics" out there? Just as people in the arts question the need for them to study algebra is there a reverse argument? EA's husband, Moose, did his training in technical fields and had very little patience or preference for reading. He's done well for himself and his career and his life without analyzing or even reading the classics. So - like math - what is defending the study of literature?
Unlike math, students can graduate from most colleges and universities without taking a literature course. I never took one. Writing classes, however, tend to be required as much as math is. With that said, I will say it's unlikely that a student will not be exposed to at least one instance of literary analysis in college. So, to get some kind of perspective literature requirements, I went back to high school. The Common Core has a nice website for what the standards are for the different levels from Kindergarten to 12th grade. Once you hit sixth grade and up the standards look very similar, but just require more extensive supporting of your ideas. From this, I get that the goal of studying literature is to help students see narrative structure, engage in critical reasoning based on evidence and inference, comparing and contrasting mediums in both artistic and practical uses of conveying ideas, examining how the characters respond to their environment, and being able to succinctly convey complex ideas. I guess I can understand those goals.
However, couldn't those skills be developed via other means? In fact, I demonstrated how algebra develops reasoning and critical thinking when defending why we study math. Scientific experimentation could be used to examine different mediums. Speaking and writing classes would be perfect for examining how to convey ideas. And psychology and sociology would let us examine real people interacting with their environment more accurately than a fictional character in a fictional environment. So, is literature just being redundant? Books take time to read - especially for someone with dyslexia, vision difficulties, and attention limitations. And many of the books that are required are books that the generation reading them don't feel they can relate to.
So, why do we require students to study literature? Because, the human mind works by building connections between both internalized, personal experiences and external examples. And literature can help provide us with both personal experiences and external examples in ways that other forms of entertainment can. Take film - often seen as the opposite of books. Lets take the Twilight series as an example. The bulk of the books is taken up by Belle's internal struggles, thoughts, insights, and musings. How do you translate that to visual - Stares! Mary Robinette Kowal mentioned this in talking about puppetry (4:05 in the podcast). The puppet is thinking about what it's looking at. Unfortunately the audience is watching the watcher and has to infer what they are thinking. While it is possible for an actor (or a puppeteer) to convey exactly what is being felt, it may still not be clear why they are feeling that way because we have no insight into the character's mind short of a blatant (and often criticized) voice-over. Not to say that books can't be ham-fisted in their approach to their topic, just that there are more options open to a writer than a film maker.
I threw this question out on Facebook and had a number of people contribute. One linked to an article on Scientific America that discussed results of reading literary fiction (the genre that "classics" often fit into). The study found that people that read literary fiction had a higher capacity for empathy. The same was not true for genre fiction, according to the study. The reason for this was that, "literary fiction... focuses more on the psychology of characters and their relationships." Which I find clashes slightly with the next statement, "Often those characters' minds are depicted vaguely, without many details, and we're forced to fill in the gaps to understand their intentions and motivations." If they focus so much on the characters' psychology and why are their minds often depicted vaguely. Anyway, I will agree that literary fiction tends to focus on unsympathetic characters and situations, requiring the reader to develop forms of empathy to understand the character better. I do think that thoughtful reading of genre fiction can also increase empathy, but the work will need opportunities for the reader to empathize.
A part of literature building our ability to empathize is that through literature we have the ability to witness the world through other peoples' eyes. George R.R. Martin said, "A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one." My initial thought was that Julius Ceasar (in the Shakespeare play of the same name) says, "A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once." There are very important distinctions between these quotes. They just sound the same. Unlike the coward a reader has the luxury of experiencing others' lives and points of view in whether those people be fictional of real. One of the best books I ever read was It Doesn't Take a Hero, the autobiography of General H. Norman Schwarzkopf. Another was The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. Both were non-fiction and enabled me to experience, in a small way, events and wars that helped shape my culture and generation. People looking to experience censorship and government controls have but to look to Fahrenheit 451 by Bradbury, 1984 and Animal Farm by Orwell, and Anthem by Rand. There are so many topics that may be explored and experienced in literature. It doesn't just have to be non-fiction.
And lastly, a reason to study literature. To help people come to enjoy reading. Books are a basis for entertainment and culture all over the world. Many movies start life between covers. Even those that don't are first written down. The same goes for theater, broadcasts, speeches, and comedy. Someone first committed it to paper and it sounded good enough there to expand and build on it. I don't begrudge film makers their adaptations of books. I don't prefer audio books over paper copy or digital. I'm just glad that I gained an appreciate for a good story early in life so I could enjoy it for the rest of my life.
I threw this question out on Facebook and had a number of people contribute. One linked to an article on Scientific America that discussed results of reading literary fiction (the genre that "classics" often fit into). The study found that people that read literary fiction had a higher capacity for empathy. The same was not true for genre fiction, according to the study. The reason for this was that, "literary fiction... focuses more on the psychology of characters and their relationships." Which I find clashes slightly with the next statement, "Often those characters' minds are depicted vaguely, without many details, and we're forced to fill in the gaps to understand their intentions and motivations." If they focus so much on the characters' psychology and why are their minds often depicted vaguely. Anyway, I will agree that literary fiction tends to focus on unsympathetic characters and situations, requiring the reader to develop forms of empathy to understand the character better. I do think that thoughtful reading of genre fiction can also increase empathy, but the work will need opportunities for the reader to empathize.
A part of literature building our ability to empathize is that through literature we have the ability to witness the world through other peoples' eyes. George R.R. Martin said, "A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one." My initial thought was that Julius Ceasar (in the Shakespeare play of the same name) says, "A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once." There are very important distinctions between these quotes. They just sound the same. Unlike the coward a reader has the luxury of experiencing others' lives and points of view in whether those people be fictional of real. One of the best books I ever read was It Doesn't Take a Hero, the autobiography of General H. Norman Schwarzkopf. Another was The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. Both were non-fiction and enabled me to experience, in a small way, events and wars that helped shape my culture and generation. People looking to experience censorship and government controls have but to look to Fahrenheit 451 by Bradbury, 1984 and Animal Farm by Orwell, and Anthem by Rand. There are so many topics that may be explored and experienced in literature. It doesn't just have to be non-fiction.
And lastly, a reason to study literature. To help people come to enjoy reading. Books are a basis for entertainment and culture all over the world. Many movies start life between covers. Even those that don't are first written down. The same goes for theater, broadcasts, speeches, and comedy. Someone first committed it to paper and it sounded good enough there to expand and build on it. I don't begrudge film makers their adaptations of books. I don't prefer audio books over paper copy or digital. I'm just glad that I gained an appreciate for a good story early in life so I could enjoy it for the rest of my life.
No comments:
Post a Comment