Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Cloud x Aerith forums! We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Reading The Classics
Topic Started: Aug 8 2006, 07:06 PM (647 Views)
Sadhana
Member Avatar
capitalism is dead
I was just combing through the livejournal of one of my favorite contemporary authors, and she started a discussion over whether or not it's pointless to make high school students read the Classics.

I don't know about other high schools across the globe, but at least here, there's a lot of required reading of classical books. I'm not talking about books that are so great that they'll never die. I'm talking about really old books that were written sometimes even hundreds of years ago. Shakespeare is a pretty good example. In my school, there's a required Shakespeare play every year. Ninth grade it's Romeo and Juliet. Tenth grade it's The Taming of the Shrew. Eleventh grade it's Macbeth. Twelfth grade it's Hamlet. So my question is: has it become pointless to teach the Classics in high school?

I'm kind of on both sides of the fence for this issue. For one thing, I love classical literature. Dostoevsky is my favorite author ever. Tolstoy was a genius. I don't know of a writer out there that could write like Shakespeare, and Faulkner was a fantastic writer. I'm 17 and still in high school, but I enjoy classical literature immensely. Yet at the same time, I see the kids in my English class who neither enjoy it nor understand it. Every time we read a Classic, our teacher always has to take extra time just helping the kids who don't understand what they're reading analyze the text (which is almost always a vast majority of the class).

There are high schoolers out there (like myself) who love the Classics. But most of them don't. So the real issue is, do we teach the kids the Classics to enhance their ability to read or do we teach the kids books most of them will enjoy to enhance their love of reading?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clerith-son
Member Avatar
In the middle of dawn. Staring at the twilights.
You can't teach people to enjoy stuff, people don't decide what they like either, they just like and dsilike stuff and that's that.

Still, a kid or any other person that has never had the chance to read a book, will most likely don't even try to, since nowadays watching tv or a movie is far more easy; maybe by making students read books more often will increase the number of children and people who like reading sinc they are giving it a try, even if up to soke point they're being forced to.

Regarding to the clasics, I wouldn't know since I indeed had to read them in school, and I love the clasics, even so not all my classmates enjoyed, and now that they are in university they don't read anymore, showing my first point, you can't make people like stuff, just to open the possibility for it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
yin-chan
Member Avatar
*dreamchaser*
Sadhana
 

There are high schoolers out there (like myself) who love the Classics. But most of them don't. So the real issue is, do we teach the kids the Classics to enhance their ability to read or do we teach the kids books most of them will enjoy to enhance their love of reading?


Yay! Another classics-lover! *loves the classics*

Anyways...my view on this. I think in this day and age, it's more essential to teach kids books that will enhance their love of reading. Why so? Well, look around. In this era we have a thousand and one things that would probably be more entertaining to an average child other than reading. Watching TV, hanging out with friends, playing games (:giggle: ). If you ask a normal kid that's out in the mall, would he rather play games or read a book, he'd probably reply "games".
Which is why I really think the love of reading is slipping away, and it's a lot more important to get them to love it again. Probably why Harry Potter was hailed by so many as a literature miracle for kids, because it got them to read again.

Nevertheless, the importance of Classics is undeniable. Although I may have said getting them to read is the first step, introducing them to Classics is certainly the second major step. I mean....what a shame if we had a whole new generation who had no idea what "Little Women" was about. What a shame! Some of the best books are the classics, IMO, and they don't all have to be heavy and dull. 'A little princess' was one of the best classics children's book ever, IMHO. Kids just need the exposure and mindset that Classics =/= Boring.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Schala
dreamer...
I agree that teaching the classics helps to expose students to literature. Some just won't take to it no matter what, but there're some who need to be shown the deeper meanings before they can appreciate the book. I sure remember how boring The Odyssey was when I read it for summer reading, but I got to like it once the teacher went through it and talked about hubris and things that I didn't understand before.

So I think that it's definitely worth it to continue teaching the classics. Even if the kids don't like it more than video games, at least they'll know what the famous Shakespearean plays were about. That knowledge can be useful since, to some extent, it helps to enrich and make a person's thinking more indepth.

I believe that enhancing a student's ability to read also enhances their interest. How can you enjoy what you cannot understand? That's the problem with the old classics- the general crowd doesn't understand them without guidance.

And that's why teachers are required to teach them in school, because if they were not, even fewer people would be able to enjoy literature (like me, for example).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sadhana
Member Avatar
capitalism is dead
I think the Classics should still be taught. I feel like people have been growing dumber and dumber after each new generation, although I don't really know if it's true. But you look at something like Shakespeare's plays, and it's hard to believe that everyone, the low classes and the high classes, understood what was happening and what they meant without any extra second for analysis. Perhaps they were just used to the language, but was the general intelligence of everyone just greater at the time?

For example, I had to analyze a letter written in the 1700s from father to son as preparation for the AP English test this year. I had to read it two or three times just to understand the general meaning of the letter, something that was casual, written by any average joe to his son who had been travelling. It astounds me that something with such a sophisticated use of language was the common writing of the time. Also, take a peak at Lincoln's second inaugural address. How could the President give a speech with such a great command of the English language and everyone understood it word for word upon one hearing only?

I look at these things, and see the generations growing less intelligent, less capable of having a through understanding of prose. Just so the population isn't benumbed even further to difficult literature, I think the Classics should definitely be taught.

At the same time, not every high schooler is going to look at the Classics and enjoy them. In fact, before I wrote this topic and read the responces, I felt like the only one who did. :lol: What's the use in understanding the sophisticated language if they never read anything because they've learned to dislike it? Therefore, I think some contemporary literature should also be taught alongside the Classics. But this literature should have deep themes and important morals. I find that a lot of modern writing is completely pointless, and I don't think those kind of books should be taught in schools. Books like Me Talk Pretty One Day and The Pact may be more enjoyable for high school students, but they shouldn't be set as examples of books that students should be reading. They're completely pointless other than for the purpose of entertainment, and I'm a firm believer that all writing should strive for a profound meaning. Books like To Kill A Mockingbird or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (although they may not be considered totally contemporary by today's date). Literature that students can enjoy but still come away from with an understanding of a deeper meaning.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Trisse
Unregistered

As a teacher i WUB all books!! classics and all!! and i feel that the MAIN reasons as to why children/students don't appreciate/like classic/contemporary stories is largely due to media :P i had a student say to me, "Nah i'll just go see the movie!!!" lol

Quote:
 
I'm a firm believer that all writing should strive for a profound meaning.


Yup Yup but sadly some believe that television will be alot more effective than a book!<<<<<not ALL! SOME! sad yet true!
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Materia Thief
Member Avatar
yet again, today I loved you
I'm, personally, someone who has always loved reading "the classics". I started around middle school and have never stopped. My favorite books are Anna Karenina and Pride and Prejudice, even though I'm still in high school (I'm going to be a Junior).

However, I do think it is impossible to instill a "respect" or "love" of literature/reading. Maybe if you introduce an interesting book, but assignment after assignment bogs down that sentiment completely. Most English teachers I've met treat a classic as something to be dissected, piece by piece, instead of consumed as a whole and while I do agree that technical aspects of writing are important, when it's boiled down to true/false and right/wrong, it's teaching not a love of reading, but a single-minded way to view a piece of "art". If the reading of classics is meant to create a sense of wonderment or love for reading, at least in my view, it's doing it the wrong way.

That's not to say I don't think they should still be taught. Classics are a wonderful way to gain a viewpoint into society at the time they were written as well as provide interesting discussion. However, as you guys have stated earlier, no book will satisfy everyone. I, personally, cannot stand half of Dickens works, even though I respect him [somewhat] as a writer. We are the generation with a dozen different names. "Myspace," "myPod," "Alpha," "Z"-- and with our rate of communication, we are experiencing things faster as ever. iPods and cell phones are essential parts of many people's lives. Multitasking is becoming increasingly more common and attention spans, at least in my opinion and experience, are growing shorter. Empathy is as well, but that'd be going into my rant on many people as being desensitized and lacking empathy. :[

Regardless, I'll bring in a personal example for this, my best friend and I went to see my school musical which was My Fair Lady. I've always liked the book Pygmalion, so I enjoyed in immensely. My best friend, on the other hand, found it immensely boring and continues to complain about it to this day--and it's not because of "flat characterization" or an "unoriginal plot". It's because she found it "boring" and that it wasn't "funny" or "eventful" like the constant comedy of "Hello Dolly," which she enjoyed. With all that's going around ourselves, we're drowning ourselves more and more in media and convenience and taking, at least in my views, less time to think. It's always quick-quick-quick, do something and then move on.

I do think the classics will always hold an appeal of at least some kind to the generations beyond our own, yet I also think their future is questionable. However, we cannot tell what the future holds, right? Que sera, sera, and all that. :3

Sadhana
 
Also, take a peak at Lincoln's second inaugural address. How could the President give a speech with such a great command of the English language and everyone understood it word for word upon one hearing only?


I think your point is sensible, but I do have a few issues with it. First of all, that was the language of their times--kind of like how Latin, Heiroglyphics or even Chinese may seem immensely difficult to someone who has never seen it, but to someone who was born reading and writing it, it's second nature. Secondly, I don't think everyone would have heard Lincoln's second inaugural address, as communication and interest simply weren't as great as they are now. Many people, I would think, were more focused on survival. I do think our society is taking steps forward, but it's more "One step forward, half-a-step back". XD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kusari Yarou
Member Avatar
Legendary Member
I love many children's book classics. A Little Princess, Little Women, The Secret Garden, the Prince and the Pauper, and teh awesome Tom Sawyer books are some of the books closest to my heart.

I think students sour towards classics because of the learning and authority that are associated with them. I have always loved Greek Mythology, but when we studied mythology in high school it was...boring as hell. It just doesn't seem fun to see Athena's wisdom in war, Hector's fall at Troy, Hera's eternal jealousy, or the tragedy of Oedipus when they're being diagrammed on the blackboard and pegged into us as mere facts to be memorized.
I also remember a friend of mine giving me two books by Mark Twain that she was over and done with...because her college course on literature had ended and she didn't ever, ever want to decipher Tom or Huck's collective psyches again. Well I read these books and I absolutely loved them.

I think this aversion to classics has more to do with the teacher's methods than the students. My advice to teachers, if given the chance would be:don't teach the classics as rote memorization, don't focus too much on other big-wig people's reviews or opinions, or questions like "what was the thematic plot element in the scene where Oedipus blinds himself ?". Focus on the students reactions as readers of the classics instead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sadhana
Member Avatar
capitalism is dead
Materia Thief
Aug 9 2006, 05:55 PM
Sadhana
 
Also, take a peak at Lincoln's second inaugural address. How could the President give a speech with such a great command of the English language and everyone understood it word for word upon one hearing only?


I think your point is sensible, but I do have a few issues with it. First of all, that was the language of their times--kind of like how Latin, Heiroglyphics or even Chinese may seem immensely difficult to someone who has never seen it, but to someone who was born reading and writing it, it's second nature. Secondly, I don't think everyone would have heard Lincoln's second inaugural address, as communication and interest simply weren't as great as they are now. Many people, I would think, were more focused on survival. I do think our society is taking steps forward, but it's more "One step forward, half-a-step back". XD

It's not really the same as Latin or Heiroglyphics or Chinese because the speech was in English. The same English that is spoken today. My point is that our ability to use and understand-- in everyday speech-- the subtleties of the English language has fallen dramatically since then. Why? Why is it that people can't understand these things now on first reading while they did in the mid-1800s? Yes, because we don't speak this way anymore. But the standards for teaching English in classrooms has something to do with it.

About whether or not everyone heard Lincoln's second inaugural address, yes, you're right. Not everyone probably heard it. Excuse me for the general term I used. What I meant was that the general public at the time could hear that speech, and know exactly what it was that he was saying.

Quote:
 
I think this aversion to classics has more to do with the teacher's methods than the students. My advice to teachers, if given the chance would be:don't teach the classics as rote memorization, don't focus too much on other big-wig people's reviews or opinions, or questions like "what was the thematic plot element in the scene where Oedipus blinds himself ?". Focus on the students reactions as readers of the classics instead.


Part of what makes Classic literature such a mastery of prose are the technical aspects. There's no avoiding that. What attracts me so much to a book like The Brothers Karamazov (one of my favorites) is Dostoevsky's ability to write a part like Pro & Contra, and then go on to completely destroy the perhaps most intelligent and well-thought out arguement for atheism-- that he himself presented to the reader-- subtly later on in the book. Sometimes, the technical aspects is what bewilders me so much about the Classics. Where I think the teachers falter in teaching classical literature is when it's ONLY about the technical aspects. When the essay question for the test is "How does Dostoevsky develop the symbolism behind patricide?" the kids aren't going to care about the story. Instead, the question should be more like "Who is the hero of the story?"

So, in short, I do agree that the technical aspects shouldn't be overemphasized, but I do believe it serves a purpose to examine them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Raist
Member Avatar
The Bringer of the Black Funeral
I'm coming into this discussion but I thought I'd add my piece nevertheless.

I've been an avid reader of the canon literature for a few years now, and like many of the posters in this thread many of those classical writings have given me the most enjoyment and meaning. Of the classics, Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment - I felt it was less concerned with broader social issues that he didn't represent nearly so well as the complexities of a single character.

I can see this debate hasn't had a reply in several months but I'll begin by asking a few questions of previous posters. Actually, I'll being by asking just one point Sadhana.

Quote:
 
My point is that our ability to use and understand-- in everyday speech-- the subtleties of the English language has fallen dramatically since then.


This is an interesting point. I believe you are correct, but I'll need something clarified first.

Quote:
 
Yes, because we don't speak this way anymore. But the standards for teaching English in classrooms has something to do with it.


I assume I'm having a dumb moment but this appears to make your earlier comment ambiguous. Are you suggesting that young people not understanding classical writings particularly well is evidence of our drop in English comprehension? I don't think you are but I have to point out that this would be fallacious. Language change across English has been as dynamic as any other language in the world. It cannot be expected of the average student to understand the writings of 200 years ago nearly so well as they might have in that time. However, I feel you may not be making this statement and so this paragraph is effectively wasteful.

Rather, are you saying that the students of today would not understand an author of similar complexity and ability writing in a contemporary perspective? This is a more valid claim. I put part of the blame on this for schools not forcing more 'Modern Classics' (I abhor that title) into the curriculum. It certainly appears - considering my ignorance of history and particularly in education - that students of today do not comprehend these texts quite so well as they may once have. Yet, there are perfectly acceptable reasons for this. Firstly, the literacy rate is far higher than it was at the times of Dickens, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Chaucer etc. Is it not surprising that when the majority of the population can read that many are not so capable of reading at a higher level? Secondly, literature is no longer given the importance it once was. Science, Maths and trades (plumbing, carpentry, electicians etc) have all risen as more 'productive' or 'pragmatic' areas to divulge in. Literature and Philosophy do not carry the importance they once did. Children are not having modern literary texts jammed into their ideas of cultural importance. School will often be the only place they encounter any kind of 'canon' literature and perhaps not with much enthusiasm there. It is hardly surprising that we see children turning away from these texts.

Now to return to the original question this raises some serious problems. Most children do not want to learn the Shakespeare texts or read Russell or Orwell or a variety of others. For most the time spent on these texts will be wasted. Further, for those few children who do still have a passion for literature it is difficult to be satisfied with the same texts year in, year out with no motivation and discussion from the classroom. Once again the education system fails to be malleable to the differing sensibilities of students.

I was discussing this very topic with a friend not long ago. English must change to cater for a variety of students. Reading the classics for most students has become a redundant practice that, if anything, only detracts from further reading and further understanding of the English language. We must cater to their needs. If their language use will mostly involve reports, documents and other similar business or beauracratic type functions then this is what should be taught. Modern english usage must be included as well. People are writing and reading more than ever on websites, myspace pages, instant messaging systems and encountering the language in movies and video games and a small number of books. Let's cater to that. Let's teach and explore those realms of communication.

This change in the focus of the curriculum solves another problem. It frees up those people who do have an interest in literature. Once you can identify exactly who these students are it is not difficult to bring them together and start exploring that literature which was earlier a point of contention. It is important to study the classics but we need to introduce more of the modern writings. I find it tragic that while we are so focused on the 'classic' writers in schools that we miss out on the great writers of our time. We will certainly encounter these writers if we continue in our studies but that is not enough. The study of literature should not be stuck in the past centuries. It needs to cover the subject of literature. It is not a discipline that can be understood in different time periods and singularities. It must be taught in a broad sense of intercommunication across a variety of periods, styles and regions. Why do we never see Saramago or DeLillo in a classroom?

I have one more point to make on this subject. I think what underlines the comments I and others have made in this thread is an issue of grammar. My grammar is comparatively poor. It frustrates me every time I write; regardless of what I may be writing. I was born in Australia when it was decided that teaching formal grammar was no longer important and that the focus would rather be on 'interpretation' and 'practical use of the language'. I'm not entirely sure what either of those comments mean and I'm sure that they are exactly the kind of phrases Orwell would turn in his grave over. However, I do agree that the past's focus on grammar as the be all and end all of English is not sensible. Nevertheless the average person of that time had a better understanding of what they could do with English. I am not suggesting that we cement certain ideas of how the language can and cannot be used. Language is dynamic, it can change. Rather, when we better understand the boundaries of English, we better understand how we can use it and where we can invent, imagine and break those boundaries for whatever purpose we may desire. This is the issue now. It matters little whether one wants to study the classics or not. Those problems can be considered later. The first step has to be teaching our children and ourselves the full breadth of our language. Without this neither group is reaching the potential they may have in whatever profession they may venture into. And more tragically, our very thought is hampered by an inability to express ourselves sufficiently.

Well, that's all I have to say. Thanks!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angelwing Aeris
Member Avatar
Clerith is eternal love
I firmly believe that children should be taught the classics and I have read as many as I can my hands on. I've read almost all of the works of Shakespeare, I've read Dream of the Red Chamber in Chinese, The Tale of Genji, Plato's Republic and it helps me understand the source and background of other texts that have come after it.

I can never understand why teens are so reluctant to read the classics. I remember when I was in my first university Shakespeare class and we had to "translate" Shakespearean English into our modern English and everyone complained. I had a bit of hard time but it was alot easier for me than for some. I remember that ever since that we have had avid Shakespeare readers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tifa Lockheart
Member Avatar
Sawboybuck's Lover
I'm not in high school anymore but I've been reading classics ever since fourth grade (inspired by Peter Pan and A Little Princess :P). As of now I love Victorian novels.
Anyway...

I think reading the classics is an important part of any English or Literature curriculum in school because it's like placing importance on history. Without them, modern-day writers and readers would not have a clue on how literature and society has evolved through the years.

Classics also document human experiences, emotions, ideas, thoughts, events, etc. By reading the classics, we can learn how to understand or appreciate them more. They provide cultural value that allows us to learn to appreciate people from different nations foreign to our own.

Most of the time, youngsters cannot relate to classics and they cannot understand them because of the words and language used. I know classics are never easy to read and sometimes, I even find myself skipping a few pages or laughing at the way emotions and events are expressed or elaborated. Also, it is probably hard to read the classics because the feelings, events, and experiences being described in the book may not be familiar with the reader yet--especially if they are young or they simply lack experience in life.

Still, classics are able to reach out to the reader and using their own experiences, they can interpret what is being depicted by the story or the emotions of the characters. I think that's when the experience of reading the classics can become more real or authentic to the reader: when they can start relating to them.

As for teachers, there should be careful consideration on the books that they are going to make the students read. Ideally, the story should be something that they can relate to or something that is familiar to a teenager's emotions and experiences so they can at least attempt to understand it and make reading it a more enjoyable experience.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The Lifestream · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Affiliates
.: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :.