Historically, why do we have English Lit classes?

[Fish]

They did have English literature classes in Roman times, but the classes were very short. Easy credits. It was the Roman equivalent of an auto shop class.

I would guess that organized literature classes started up some time after the movable type printing press in 1451. Prior to that, hand-illuminated manuscripts were too expensive to pass out in bulk to mere students.

[Derleth]

@bramma23

If you are suggesting that every author’s sole objective is simply to tell an interesting story than you are wrong.

I should have been more precise. It’s every good author’s sole objective to tell an interesting story.

Literature is more complicated than an outline. Analysis requires more than plot summary. Contextualization requires more than content. Many authors, particularly most of those found in the canon, are engaging in complicated issues and moral/logical/sociological/psychological, etc. gray areas that we haven’t figured out today and possibly will never figure out.

Those complicated issues are best engaged in the essay form, now sadly reduced and mangled to a mere thesis defense in most High Schools, because novels promote symbolism over clear thinking and require that a plot be dragged along on top of everything else.

I also find it interesting that most of what is being discussed as “literature” in this discussion has been limited to prose novels with opaque references to other classical forms of aesthetics. The novel is a literary form only a couple hundred years old and therefore has a different perspective and emphasis than other forms of aesthetics.

Yes, I know that. Novels are, however, the sole focus of most English Lit classes.

Classical aesthetics as promoted and defined by Aristotle were designed to elicit particular emotional reactions in their audiences so that they could become better citizens and contribute more to the city-state. Aristotle, and Plato if i remember correctly, were both concerned with poetry and art for art’s sake as a waste of time and energy that could have been devoted toward the state or the needs of improving the polity.

Right. I’ve read The Republic and been thoroughly sickened by it like everyone else.

This was the predominant view for many centuries. Eventually poetry somewhat evolves out of communal songs and stories and takes the form of cautionary tales to spread moral messages and origin stories. (Some of the more famous examples of this would be The Divine Comedy and The Decameron). The new classicists revert to the older philosophy of the Greeks with the added notion that art should teach something to its audience.

Lordy, save us from Improving Art!

The Romantics emerge as a clear opposite with an emphasis on literature and poetry as a vehicle for emotion and personal feeling, not moralizing or demogaugery. It was the intent to be a “spontaneous overflow of emotion” and literature such as Coleridge’s Kubla Khan and Shelley’s Adonais are hardly about more than themselves as artistic creations. So there is where your argument has more creedence.

Right. We’re tearing apart something meant to be read quickly and for effect.

Classes, instructors, etc looking too heavily into Romantic poetry or other forms that evolved out of it (confessional poetry, etc.) for something deeper and more profound. But many other forms and ideologies emerged to compete against Romanticism and Rousseauian ‘liberalism.’ And many of these forms were predicated on the idea that poetry, novels, literature in all its forms does way more than simply tell about my emotions or tell an interesting story. The Wasteland, Ulysses, any number of Shakespearian plays, and works of more modern authors such as Ted Hughes, Mark Strand, Robert Lowell, Don Delillo are clearly operating on more levels than plot, content and personal feeling.

And is it any coincidence that The Wasteland and Ulysses shall not live much longer than the 20th Century?

If this is a criticism from a student perspective, then the answer is different but similar. Using higher levels on Bloom’s taxonomy such as synthesis and application require students to think beyond the source material or the words on the page.

Old-fashioned rhetoric did that. Creating fiction does that as well.

The idea is to make literature not just static material on a page but something that has relevancy still today. Through helping people see the connections between the text and themselves, the text and society, the text and other texts, the text and the past, etc, students can develop these higher forms of thinking and make them more discerning, critical, analytical in all or other phases of their lives.

I know those arguments. I mentioned them in the OP.

This principle is not regulated just to literature either. Many musicians and filmmakers are trying to make clear statements beyond just making interesting and “good” music or films.

Hence all of the unwatchable New Wave films to come out of France in the 1960s. Nobody even attempts them anymore outside of specialized classes.

There are plenty of authors, artists, and other entertainers that do not put a great deal of thought, introspection or foresight for motifs into their work. But to minimize all authors as simply interested in telling a good story is way too broad of a generalization to have significant merit.

I’m not minimizing them. Do know know how difficult it is to tell an interesting story that remains interesting over more than about a century?

[straight_man]

@Derleth

I should have been more precise. It’s every good author’s sole objective to tell an interesting story. [space] Those complicated issues are best engaged in the essay form, now sadly reduced and mangled to a mere thesis defense in most High Schools, because novels promote symbolism over clear thinking and require that a plot be dragged along on top of everything else.

You are clearly misinformed. I have yet to read a “good” work of literature that had no purpose outside of itself. Just to use examples that you’ve brought up, what do you think the *Aeneid *and Lord of the Flies are about? Hint: “a dude conquering a place” and “a bunch of boys faffing about” are not acceptable answers. Complicated ideas are generally best communicated in essay form when their content consists entirely of logical reasoning. That condition rarely holds; literature often deals with human concerns because it is exceptionally good at observing the human condition, which itself does not necessarily follow logical constructs.

Your argument could fairly be reduced to “I don’t like or understand literature, so I don’t think it should be taught.” I kind of feel that way about biology – so what?

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Derleth

It’s every good author’s sole objective to tell an interesting story.

If you really believe this, then either your own Lit classes were woefully inadequate or you weren’t paying attention during them.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

No, he’s saying that all literature has to be written specifically for him and his extremely limited tastes, understanding, and willingness to appreciate, and it is worthless if it doesn’t meet that standard.

That’s an unfortunately common attitude.

[BigT]

No, he is using his own definition of a good work, that apparently others don’t agree with.

On the other hand, your post is intentionally trying to insult him for having views other than your own.

[1010011010]

Could it have anything to do with the idea of English cultural superiority in a colonial age?

What people describe about education is basically studying the literature of a progression of empires.

[Colibri]

Given that this has essentially become a debate about literature, it is probably better suited for Cafe Society than GQ.

[Moderating]

With regard to insulting other posters, I’m not sure that anyone is quite over the line just yet, but some are inching towards it. Let’s try to keep this discussion civil for the sake of the CS moderators.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator