I'm not much of a scholar when it comes to literature. I'm much more interested in science and medicine and those are the kinds of books that I read. When I think back to the literature we read in high school, often I'm not sure why we read it and what I was supposed to learn from it. I'm thinking of works like "Metamorphosis," "A Cask of Amontillado," and "The Great Gatsby." I'm not saying at all that these works are without merit. I'm just not sure what makes them stand out so much amongst so many. How is the canon chosen and what are students supposed to learn from it?

10/31/2009 6:37:37 PM

people who do read a lot decide it's important

10/31/2009 7:43:39 PM

Whatever Texas decides, since the publishers tailor books for them.

10/31/2009 9:31:18 PM

this is so weird

it's like asking "why are good things good?"

because by the definitions set for the thing... they're good

they stand above the rest

what do you need for literary works?

well written, poignant, emotive, unique...

the works you've mentioned are masterpieces written by literary giants

and you say "I'm not saying at all that these works are without merit."

ugh

10/31/2009 9:47:13 PM

I don't think it's weird. I'm asking for people who are knowledgeable and who appreciate these things to explain why they are chosen for canonization. I'd think it's an easy question for someone educated on the matter. It's no different than asking a sommelier why a great wine is great. It's a fair question.

Quote :

"well written, poignant, emotive, unique..."

That's a perfectly reasonable explanation.



[Edited on October 31, 2009 at 10:14 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2009 10:13:17 PM

i know that a couple of the books that my teacher taught in AP english were taught because they were well-written, emotive, all that stuff. but also because they used a lot of the plot devices/styles/themes that are asked on AP tests. All the King's Men and Grapes of Wrath are two that come to mind.

that said, i love both of those books just as books. but it is also very easy to write a short essay about them.

[Edited on October 31, 2009 at 10:22 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2009 10:21:31 PM

Well, most people in the literary field won't be shy to tell you that the universal "literary canon" (which isn't universal at all, but usually follows pretty closely along the Ivy League's choice) is made up of dead white guys. I'm not even kidding here, they're all dead white guys. It's a bit of a joke in literature, but it's also a very serious point of concern--"canons" in literature have always been pretty conservative in who and what they include. This has changed a lot with postmodern audiences, but it's still considered an "issue".

As far as what you're actually concerned with knowing... well, you have to have some givens. For example, the "classics" and "canons" don't always stand out among everything else, and they're not always the most educational or the most adeptly written (though almost always they are). Part of it is popularity among literary scholars, which is entirely different from popularity among general audiences. And really, I think you're missing the point of literature--frankly, you're not always going to "learn" something from a novel in the traditional sense. Reading in itself is a learning process, and when we read we learn in the sense that some of us will better understand human conflict, or the interaction between a father and son, or the behavior of socialites in the roaring 20s (whoooo Gatsby). There's not always a "lesson" or moral that a story teaches us as much as inferred messages about many other things. The Great Gatsby isn't within the literary canon because it teaches us not to be floozy socialites, or that so and such is a bad thing, but that it is a unique and overwhelming piece about the "roaring 20s", delves into complicated relationships between persons, character motivation and desire, as well as being an extremely appropriate example of mechanically sound writing.

Blah blah blah, am I kind of getting an idea across?

10/31/2009 10:46:31 PM

Sure, those are good points. I'm trying to understand these in particular because they're among the things we have decided are important enough to teach our children. I think anything a society decides is that important says something about it and that's what I'm thinking about.

11/1/2009 12:31:28 AM

While it is certainly not something taught in most high school lit classes, I always tell people who don't "get" literature to read Lolita. While subject matter is most shocking, it stands as an incredible example of artful writing. Most anyone can look at their emotional response to that book and learn a lot about themselves, and consequently a lot about the power of writing. Nabokov is a solid writer in a traditional sense, but as far as I'm concerned, no other writer I've ever been exposed to has as much skill in controlling the mind of his reader through the simple choice of words. If you look at reading with a scientist's mind, it all seem sort of feeble and irrelevant, but I find it hard to believe that someone can't be moved by the sheer manipulation you experience when reading that book. If you choose to read it and it does nothing but gross you out, maybe you should look into pre-emerging herbicides and leave literature behind for a while.

11/1/2009 1:30:51 AM

Since you listed it, I'll use "The Cask of Amontillado" as an example. And I also chose this piece because Poe is one of my favorite authors.

At a one point in the story, Fortunato says to Montressor as they descend to the catacombs, "[T]he cough is a mere nothing; it will not kill me. I shall not die of a cough." And Montressor replies, "True--true." This is a perfect example of literary irony. The reader knows that Fortunato will not die of a cold--he will die very soon, in fact, from being entombed alive!

And even Fortunato's name, which suggests "good fortune," is ironic. He wasn't very fortunate, was he?

"The Cask of Amontillado" reads in a much different way when one understands the literary device of irony--the story is even darkly comical. Poe's use of irony in this story is pure literary genius, and it is one example of why this work, among others, for this reason alone should be listed in any "canon" of merit.

Furthermore, one has but to read Poe's "The Philosophy of Composition" or his critiques of other writers' works to realize that the man was a great master. And the great masters have much to teach us and future generations.

11/1/2009 3:22:20 AM

Quote :

"I'm trying to understand these in particular because they're among the things we have decided are important enough to teach our children."

Honestly, I think the decision about what books are considered "canon" is largely due to choosing books that clearly display themes relevant to the current curriculum or are appropriately challenging given one's grade level. The Great Gatsby is a novel of decadence and tragedy (and therefore possibly a warning to students), but there are tons of themes in it worth exploring, though the American Dream is probably one of the most overriding. I'd like to think the books were chosen for the exploration of one's own humanity in these themes plus the added benefit of learning about literary styles/genres (every author no doubt has their own literary style). I personally remember reading things like Les Miserables (the abridged version, thank goodness) in high school, and while I was quizzed on the plot points, etc, there were questions about the nature of justice and sacrifice that required a deeper understanding/connection with the book on my part. I think there can be problems when a teachers assigns value or a correct interpretation of a novel instead of letting students explore for themselves (I think this happens a lot in middle/high school because students haven't always honed their skills for mining texts for examples of their theories, etc). If there's one thing I've discovered from continuing to study literature in college, it's that boiling things down to themes is not a holistic way of viewing a novel. I think it's hard to figure out how to teach these students without throwing a book at them and saying "okay, let's hear what you got out of this": I think they're just trying to steer kids in the right direction but inadvertently make the conclusions for them.

I hope I helped on how these things could benefit a student: I see the study of literature as invaluable to their future, even if it is just to read books of their own choosing. Learning how other writers use the basics of writing should even help their own writing.

I don't honestly know why those exact books are chosen because I feel that actually liking a book is very subjective. I hate some "classics," like Jane Eyre (which beats you over the head with symbolism, which may actually make it a little more accessible to students). I'm not sure if teachers can pick off of an approved list of works or not, either.

Quote :

"While subject matter is most shocking, it stands as an incredible example of artful writing. Most anyone can look at their emotional response to that book and learn a lot about themselves, and consequently a lot about the power of writing. Nabokov is a solid writer in a traditional sense, but as far as I'm concerned, no other writer I've ever been exposed to has as much skill in controlling the mind of his reader through the simple choice of words."

I agree, but there are people who can't look past the morality of the story and therefore dislike Lolita. I personally feel there are authors whose talent is above all the others I've read but of course they won't resonate with everyone. As far as style and diction are concerned, though, Nabokov and Pynchon are at the top of my list.

11/1/2009 11:11:39 AM

"The Cask of Amontillado" is one of my favorite short stories ever. glad it got a mention.

but I think her entry ^ pretty much sums up exactly what I would have said.

11/1/2009 11:22:00 AM

Those are all thoughtful answers, thanks for playing.

11/1/2009 2:54:49 PM

mine wasn't that thoughtful

it was just true

11/1/2009 3:11:56 PM

I think you're misunderstanding a large part of the educational component. They're not really learning about the books themselves. Those books and the attention they've received over the years cater to high school learning objectives and the students themselves.

They're usually reading the books and then writing an LA, having class discussions, etc. That is where a lot of the learning is happening. The books are a means to an end. These assignments are being used to teach comprehension, critical thinking, basic research skills, argumentative writing, and so on.

These are works that have enough attention/work focused on them that students at the high school level can easily research and grasp to a certain extent, at least the big themes. They're sort of heavier reading with training wheels.

11/1/2009 5:36:20 PM

Fictional literature is just entertainment. Sure, maybe you might learn something, but it's entertainment, just like classical music, theater, opera, rock and roll, improv comedy. That so much weight is placed on it in education is pretty silly.

11/1/2009 5:41:20 PM

HOW FUCKING DARE YOU

11/1/2009 5:43:40 PM

Readin teaches you to write good and shit too

11/1/2009 8:24:15 PM

^^^ I beg to differ. While I think adults and children alike should have a healthy reading diet of both fiction and non-fiction, I tend to think that creativity and imagination are developed more strongly while reading fictional literature versus reading non-fictional literature. I could definitely be wrong of course, but this is a personal opinion.

Overall though, I definitely don't think fictional literature (or literature in general) is overemphasized in education. And I am an Engineer, not a liberal arts major or anything.

11/1/2009 8:38:37 PM

is the same as

[Edited on November 1, 2009 at 8:50 PM. Reason : .]

11/1/2009 8:50:06 PM

ha ok, now I know for sure you're just trolling. peace.

11/1/2009 10:24:43 PM

^^

it can be, given time

but considering the volume of material put out now, I would bet on no

11/1/2009 10:33:58 PM

I'm dead serious. I love the arts and study several in detail, but I recognize them as simply entertainment and leisure time activities. I'd urge you to be careful when basing your life(or your college degree) around diversions such as literature.

11/1/2009 10:45:21 PM

Here we go

11/1/2009 10:47:29 PM

^^

every read The Hobbit?

Bilbo kills three fuckers just like you.

11/1/2009 10:50:25 PM

Don't feed the troll.

11/1/2009 11:55:14 PM

11/2/2009 12:40:36 AM

I honestly don't think he's a troll. That kind of attitude towards literature is pretty common, especially in the South--the idea that if you can't hold it in your hands, it's not valuable in your life, or to the lives of others.

11/2/2009 12:45:09 AM

Have I read The Hobbit? Sure, I've even researched Tolkien a good bit(He was kind of a pussy, one of his boys turned out to be a pederast)

Have you seen season 3 episode 2 of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia?! OMG, they had a conversation just like this!!!

Is one of these artistic references more pertinent than another? Could we write lengthy and probing research papers on each? Explore the influences of Catholicism and oral folklore in each? Sure.

11/2/2009 1:14:34 AM

If he really does feel this way, so troll or no, he's beyond convincing.

11/2/2009 2:28:12 AM

Quote :

"That kind of attitude towards literature is pretty common, especially in the South"

Let me say that again.

11/2/2009 7:48:26 AM

The sun kills them. Or Gandalf, who is at least responsible for them losing track of time and forgetting about the sunrise. Bilbo just hides in a thornbush and cries until the ordeal is over.

11/2/2009 12:45:30 PM

Quote :

"I'm dead serious. I love the arts and study several in detail, but I recognize them as simply entertainment and leisure time activities. I'd urge you to be careful when basing your life(or your college degree) around diversions such as literature."

Except people value entertainment far more highly, when measured by what we spend money on, than anything else, and it has been this way throughout history.

We also need arts and leisure activities to live happy lives, as much as we need technology that helps us to survive. They are equally important in their own ways, it's very foolish to just ay that literature/entertainment/art shouldn't be something a person should base their life around, when our species needs people to base their lives around those things, perhaps more-so than anything else on a fundamental level.

11/2/2009 12:57:17 PM