I think you are talking about something a little different than I am. IMHO Developing the critical sensibility is not necessary, but also not contrary to the experience one can have with literature, or for that matter any art. Some works of fiction are something I respond to emotionally and not intellectually. The characters are described in such a way as to come to life, they have a realness to them. To try to explain the emotions that occur on an intellectual level is maybe sometimes a good idea, but I also think sometimes not. I think it is more genuine to be able to exist in the realm of not knowing exactly what you feel. My belief is that the view that literature is something that needs to be dissected and analyzed and explained rationally as to “why this” or “why that” diminishes the experience. You are thus required to deliver rational arguments, take sides, prove points. I find that the mindset inherently inferior for many works of literature, but I do employ that mindset for understanding more concrete things.
For me there is not a lot of loved it/hated it type of thinking; I just read something and I react how I react. Sometimes I can have a reaction a week later a month later. Some things are best read several times over many years for me also.
I guess I’m not as into the “why” as I used to be. Maybe I’m just dumb, or have lost brain cells or what have you. I’m not being sarcastic, it’s just that I have different interests than that. I read a novel or poem in the same way I watch a movie or listen to music or view a painting; oftentimes the intellect is not involved in the way you and some others in the thread are describing. Just how I do things - I admit it could be completely the wrong way but it works for me.
Not everyone particularly cares about the why, its just enough to enjoy a story.
I also enjoy learning something about history and the motivations / what may have driven historical leaders, but that’s a different type of analysis.
Speaking for myself - I find it kinda pretentious to apply “critical analysis” to likes and dislikes, and its not really the sort of discussion I’m into - but then I guess, I’m rather simple and shallow.
Considering the development of the semi-literate internet textspeak culture, I daresay this was probably a better use of their time than teaching Jane Eyre or something.
It was like holding back the tide with a wall of pudding, but at least they tried.
I’m pretty sure–though not certain–that we had spelling tests at least through 9th, if not 10th grade. I don’t see the problem with that. (ETA: Sorry, this should be a reply to Chronos. Every week might be excessive but, judging by the papers of my peers that I saw in college, it might be helpful.)
Sure, not everyone needs to be interested in every field of knowledge, but that’s a far cry from saying a particular field of knowledge isn’t important. I don’t particularly care how my television works, but I’m really glad someone out there does. You might not care why certain works of art appeal to you while others don’t, but the people creating the books, and movies, and TV shows you watch care, and they use that knowledge to make better books, and movies, and TV shows for you to enjoy.
That’s interesting. I had one teacher that taught everything in elementary school. We didn’t have subject teachers until high school. (Except for art and music and gym, which aren’t actual subjects in grade school.)
What other subjects did you have separate teachers for?
Writing essays about fiction has more to do with developing comprehension, imagination, attention to detail, patience, reasoning, critical thinking, and communication skills than it has to do with figuring out the “correct” interpretation. In that respect, the child of the author doesn’t necessarily have any advantage.
I thought those sentences were succinct in the Hemingway manner. He could easily have turned them into a single sentence. I know I would.
It falls apart the moment Tom Sawyer shows up. Actually, some [del]25[/del] [del]50[/del] 75 pages before that. It was as if he had no original plan to end the story, but ran out of river. Or so I thought last Fall. In the 8th grade, 11th grade, and Freshman year in college I just thought it had begun to suck. Never could stand young Master Sawyer. And even though I know teenagers, I still think Huck was mighty immature for 14.
Absolutely. But Huck Finn the great novel never actually reaches that point. Somewhat the way that Steely Dan disbanded in 1980 and never made another album. You can add your own examples: I’m sure everybody has one.
In high school, in a World Lit class, we were reading something translated from Spanish. There was a single sentence where the main character “put on his morning clothes”, as in clothes you wear before noon. The teacher went on and on about the morning/mourning connection, and how the character was grieving over something that had happened earlier. There was nothing else to indicate that the character was sad or in mourning beyond this single sentence. Finally, a student who spoke Spanish told him that “morning” and “mourning” aren’t homophones in Spanish. He replied “It doesn’t matter!” and kept going. So yeah, total BS.
While I’m not necessarily sure that the teachers were full of BS, I knew that I myself was full of BS. I could absolutely pull an interpretation out of the text and give it to the teachers, but it never felt genuine. I never felt like what I was writing was what I really thought the book was trying to say, or even something that I garnered out of the text because of my personal experience. I was just writing to get the grade. That or it was something I felt was so acutely obvious that it didn’t seem worth discussing but I had to write something so there you go (things like “Her obsession with housework and cleanliness shows that she realizes her life is falling apart. These actions are just a way for her to pretend she still has control over her life.”)
It’s mostly for that reason that I disliked the grueling piece-by-piece in class break downs of the books over the course of two months. These days I take a far more easy-going approach to books. After a few readings I will usually form ideas and deeper meanings that could be there or that I think resonate with my own perspective, but many times I just like to read the stories as stories.
The downside of this is with old works I will often forget to examine the work on a social commentary level when that was a common thing to do. I get halfway through Le Morte D’Arthur, wonder why the Tristram chapters sound “off”, then look it up and realize I forgot that the author was trying to do more than just write a nice set of knight stories :smack: So my lazy reading can be a failing of mine.
Drinking poison and stabbing yourself in the heart aren’t very safe either. If they’d been content to just stick to the sex, they’d have been better off.
It wasn’t until I watched the film Warm Bodies that it dawned on me: the moral of Romeo and Juliet is Don’t Split the Party.
I do not see how this is so, since I don’t remember ever having to write a critique of a work. Knowledge of what I like comes either from just noticing it or from noticing patterns in books I like or don’t. Close reading, as far as I can tell, requires you to put aside your own likes and dislikes.
If I don’t like a work, it’s almost certainly down to its plot, and that’s the one thing you rarely discuss in literature classes. Close reading can give me fresh insight about the story, and can help redeem otherwise bad works, but I don’t see how it helps me articulate my opinion.
Sure, essay writing in generally helped with that, but that’s because it’s basically a class in how to support your arguments.