Quote: yesilmavi wrote:
Didn't you get this? (I remember classes in my high school days where we did get this. With example text, short story's etc. An example would be
using the same words with a number of different meanings depending on context. (number was 6? or 8? or something)
I think, though i don't remember my book tests well, that i did get questions about some of these things in relation to assigned books, beside stuff
about the book itself. )
Yes and no. My point is that the tendency is for a teacher to start waxing lyrical about what a wonderful dude
Shakespeare was and how his plays are really really fine...now memorise these lines by tomorrow, please.
As opposed to holding, say, one of his pieces up and going - okay, see here, this King Lear guy? He's an example of a tragic hero. And here's what tragedy means...
I'm not saying that never occurs. Just that many teachers don't do that well. And as a consequence, many students don't look beyond the books in
front of 'em.
I only really started enjoying Literature in my last couple years of high school education, when I got a chance to do modern stuff and practical
criticism.
But even then, I still had to do a class entitled 'Shakespeare and Classic Writers'. If you'll pardon the stereotype...it was a
course taught by a prudish uptight Catholic woman. Now, one day in particular, I - and a few other students - suggested that 17th century metaphysical love
poetry could be compared to pop songs.
Think about it for a second. Sonnets about love and sex aren't all that different from contemporary pop music. Heck, even some of the imagery is damn near identical. And that shouldn't be surprising. It makes sense. They're the same thing. Of course, our
teacher was shocked, nay, horrified that we even thought the great poets were at all
comparable to Britney Spears, and had an epic meltdown right there.
There's an academic award for the best GCE A-Level Literature exam answer outside the United Kingdom - ie, among the Commonwealth countries that use a
British education system. I won it when I graduated some years ago. So obviously I was doing something right, even
though I loathe Charles bloody Dickens, barely tolerate Shakespeare, had a terribly antagonistic relationship with my Classic Lit teacher, and ultimately
skipped half her classes.
My point is, the way Literature is taught by most teachers puts emphasis on the wrong things. It manages to turn
people off the idea of books and reading, rather than equip 'em with the
tools to better appreciate them.
The latter is purportedly the point of Literature. And yet, what we get is boring old books taught by boring teachers who think they're the be-all and end
all.
Shakespeare's good, certainly, but he wasn't the Second Coming of Jesus, and his stuff isn't meant to be
read as scripture. That's what a lot of people forget.
Back home, for a while...there was actually a debate whether Literature should even be taught in schools. Because it's a "hard" subject that most students don't like and don't score well in. Plus, it's a
subject "without practical application".
And that's a shame.
Because if our next generation of kids is a bunch who don't know how to appreciate a good story, they're just gonna grow up and write even more dross
on fanfiction.net, and we'll all be doomed.
-- Acyl