h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Romeo and Juliet is famous because it was written in English and frequently performed, which meant that even people who couldn't read could enjoy the story. Pyramus and Thisbe isn't famous because it was written in Latin, a language which, for a long time, was only taught to the clergy and nobility (if the nobility were taught to read at all, which many weren't). The clergy weren't interested in Latin fiction, so it wasn't translated into a form accessible to the masses. I read the original as part of 'O' level Latin, and the language and imagery is just as beautiful as Shakespeare, but not as accessible to the world at large.

My objection to English Literature lessons is that children aren't taught to think about what they are reading and what it means to them. They are taught stock answers about what a book, play or poem is about and are expected to regurgitate these answers in exams. I must have done this well, 'cos I can't think of any other reason why I got an A for my 'O' level when I did virtually no revision.
English Lit. didn't put me off Shakespeare (though it probably puts a lot of kids off him), but I'll never be able to read 'To Kill A Mockingbird' again.

I wish I hadn't begun this forum as an attack on Shakey per se. The main point was, as a number of people have picked up on, to discuss why English Lit teaching in schools is turning more people off English than getting them into it. English Lit is in danger of looking as useful as Latin in the wide world post-School if teachers don't accept that it has a practical side outside of teaching people to become... English teachers.

Has anyone got a handle on what is being taught in English Lit in schools right now? I can only go on my own experience (I left school 13 years ago). The thing that strikes me as very odd is that the main focus was on fiction. Especially when a hell of a lot of the people who slog through to get an English degree end up as journalists, website content editors, advertising copywriters etc. I'd have thought that reviewing broadsheet newspaper or magazine articles (to learn the art of distilling information effectively) was at least as useful as concentrating on Shakespeare, Milton et al.

Is this changing?

Surely in the wider context Eng Lit teaching should be more about students learning a useful practical skill than how to regurgitate quotes or instilling a nebulous 'appreciation of literature'.

Let me know what you all think...

- TWF

I am only in High School, but last year I took a class where we read a lot of different types of literature. We read two plays by shakespeare and that is where I really began to like him (I finally reached a reading level to enjoy the story and understand what he is saying). We also read 'Catcher in the Rye','The Zoo Story', a bunch of other short stories, some Greek stuff (The sequal to Oediphus Rex (Oediphus Rex its self is in Advanced Placement Literature (12th Grade)) and one other play). Also in there was The Prince and Ethan Frome. They both sucked (just my opinion, I know a few people that accually liked them). This year in lit my class is reading The Crucible, The Scarlet Letter, and Maggie: A Girl Of The Streets and later in the year I am taking a different lit class that will get into some different types of books.

Hi FordP42,
Are you covering any non-fiction? It all sounds like fictional literature to me.

Is the only exposure you can get to non-fiction by working on a school newspaper? If so, unless you plan to write fiction or be a book critic - what practical use do you think a diet of fiction is?

OK I understand people would be mad if you weren't doing any fiction, but the 'appreciation of the finer things' excuse is a very dodgy one.
And yes, I know fiction CAN have a useful bearing on understanding the real world e.g. Kafka's "The Trial" examines oppressive political systems and the struggle of individualism. But, I am still alarmed that no-one is being taught how to read between the lines of a newspaper column or examine the 'New Journalism' of writers like Tom Wolfe or even Hunter S.Thompson.

It is this 'divide' between what is seen as 'arts' and 'sciences' that annoys me too. It keeps English Literature in a fiction-based subject ghetto it should not be in. Surely an acute understanding of one's own language and the uses it can be put to should be the cornerstone of modern schooling. It is after all about how to efficiently communicate ideas.
Or is it not?
Maybe it's all about how to 'appear' well-read and cultured at dinner parties.
- TWF

For the most part, non-fiction's purpose is to give an accurate picture of what has happened while Fiction's purpose is both to entertain and get a point accross. The newspaper might be great literature but it is hard to study in a class (other than memorization) because there is no hidden point other than speculation on why something happened. Most of the time news is slanted (any possibly way by all periodicles (conservative, liberal, tree-hugging, religious)) which other than memorization is all that can be studied. Fiction normally has many points to it that can be pulled out and discussed and written on. Non-fiction is studied in history classes while literature classes are used for fiction.

The problem for me was always the way the points were pulled out. It was always 'This bit of this play / book / poem means this', not 'What do YOU think this means?' or 'What does this say to you?' We were never taught to think about what we were reading, which is as important for non-fiction as it is for fiction. An awful lot of people read the newspapers and believe every word they read, without stopping to think about political / religious / other bias, censorship of information, distortion / with-holding of facts, etc.

Newspaper or magazine articles could still be studied, either as part of a Literature class or as part of a more general English class. The thing to study is the style of writing and the way the facts are put across. Don't worry about hidden meaning, as there shouldn't be any. Think about what you are being told, or not told, and how you are being told.

This teacher had group discussions in which she would let everyone speak and let the conversations go wherever they may. That is Why I liked the class so much. The conversations went how the class needed them to go for the papers to be written. I think it might just be this one teacher though. The teacher I have this semester tells the class what she thinks they need to know in order to get a good paper written. That is why I am not doing well. I choose a topic that she hasn't covered and I get a crappy grade on the paper because I don't put the work into covering the topic completely while last year I could cover that in discussion if I so desired. If you were to study newspapers in school not for content but for style I think a lot of people would be lost very quickly. I think that knowledge is only desired if that is the chosen career which is what the journalism class at my school is for. But also that class is only taken by people on newspaper and yearbook

In my time in high school, all the English classes covered fiction and poetry. However, factual stuff was attended to in History and Government classes. In the Government classes, we actually read newspaper articles and periodicals, and discussed their content. In fact, these were our main sources for the debates. So it was a pretty well rounded experience, overall.

And in my English classes, the discussions were very open. The instructor would point out a certain section, and ask everyone what they thought it meant. Several different interpretations would come to light, and the instructors emphasised that no interpretations were wrong. Sooner or later, though, the instructor would provide us with the concensus interpretation, if no one came up with it on their own. That's why I did so well in English, because my interpretations were often wildly different from the norm, but I could support them effectively, and it made my papers, if nothing else, interesting to the teachers.

There was a trailer on the BBC last night for some theme evening they're going to have on Billy. The trailer showed several people coming out with everyday sayings like: 'Love is blind', 'I shall not budge an inch', 'He's eating me out of house and home', 'I didn't sleep a wink'. What do you know, they were ALL quotes from various Shakespeare plays.

Having said that, I did Hamlet and Richard II for my Eng. Lit. 'O' Level and found them tedious in the extreme. The best bit was Polonius getting stabbed and saying 'Oh! I am dead!'. Bill, it's IMPOSSIBLE to be telling the truth with that statement.

Er... are you still speaking of my friend William when you mention Bill? I was just wondering.

Foolish Polonius probably said that because William didn't use many stage directions. In fact, William makes fun of it himself in A Midsummer Night's Dream, during the famous "play within a play" portion, wherein an actor dies onstage for a good five minutes.

If Hamelt Still bores you, I suggest watching the Keneth Branaugh (sp?) version. It's surprisingly easy to follow because many of the players are talented enough to make the story clear even while using the archaic language.

If Hamlet STILL bores you, read or see the play (don't watch the film, it's a boring film) "Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" by Tom Stoppard. You'll know the story of Hamelt well enough by now that you'll verily laugh you ass off. And by ass I mean donkey, of course.

I have every confidence in the ability of the average Eng. Lit teacher to make the Karma Sutra appear dull. The problem is that after studying a book in Eng. Lit. it's hard to tell the difference between the genuinely tedious (amongst which I number A High Wind In Jamaica) and that which is merely badly taught.

This is very interesting. Many people here are complaining that Shakespeare was a hack because he stole plots and ideas. The Simpsons, of couse, achieves its contemporary greatness because it is a collection of rip-offs and sideways-glances at our world. How many times has a Simpsons episode followed(however loosely) a great work of literature. Almost all the characters are glimpses of social stereotypes of people today. Yes, I believe Homer has even murdered a few wonderful Shakespearian soliloquies...

...yet I hope that future generations are not ignorant enough to credit the Simpsons with originating these plots...

Who originated the plots for the Simpsons or Shakespeare isn't important to me. Almost every story has been told. What I like is when someone takes someone else's idea and makes something great out of it, be it Shakespeare's tragedies or Homer's bufoonery...

'...yet I hope that future generations are not ignorant enough to credit the Simpsons with originating these plots...'

It's up to us to stop this. My son was watching Wayne's World 2 and saw the Graduate 'banging on the window in church' reference. He thought it was a reference to an episode of the Simpsons.

Have no fear, I put him right.

I always thought studying plays as 'cold text' on its own was a deeply unproductive way to go about things. To get the whole experience, one has to combine it with watching or acting the scenes. Maybe Shakey should come more under the auspices of Drama? Or should there be a 'Literary Theatre' GCSE or somesuch?

Speaking as one who got their highest individual paper mark in the Shakespeare part of my English Degree, I've always liked the Bard. , Not so much that I have to laud him to the utmost, however. A Bardolater I am not (look it up... ). I come here not to bury Shakespeare, nor to praise him. Merely to suggest that his plays, whilst being possibly the greatest single canon of dramatic and poetic literature in existence, certainly have their dud moments. Still, it's always good fun to pick him to pieces and stick the critical boot in, so to speak.
Prime example of S. over-egging the pudding: As You Like It. Terribly dreary, uninteresting play that veers from the boringly portentous (ie Jaques etc) to the rather dull gender confusion, which has been seized by rabid feminist interpreters of S. and brandished like a confession, or at the least in true Neville Chamberlain style.

Favourite line (from my favourite play):
Coriolanus, Act II Scene 1; 'one who converses more with the buttock of the night, than with the forehead of the morning.' Smashing.

"...his plays, ... certainly have their dud moments."

So, was it a deliberate conspiracy to inflict only the "dud moments" upon me in Higher English, or does it get *worse*...?

See my comments on As You Like It. It's as bad as anything S. has written. I mean, 5 (Five! Count 'em!) Acts-worth of boring tossers blundering around a quasi-mythological forest that may or my not be real, who either dress up as the opposite gender and arse about trying to pull each other, or moan about how crap life is. Nothing else happens in the play, pretty much. It's dullness incarnate.

The trouble with Shakespeare is that he reads very badly. The difference between a Shakespeare play
read, and one acted, is enormous. He is one of my favourite authors, and I can't stand reading his plays.
(Unlike e.g. Stoppard, who sometimes is better read than acted).

Also the language problem means that you have to have a fairly competent set of actors. If any
of you were put off by reading Shakespeare, give him a try on stage. Just once. Go on.
How bad can it be for one evening?

I recently saw "Blackadder: Back and Forth", where a 20th Century Blackadder with a time machine comes face to face with Shakespeare... He gets him to autograph one of his manuscripts (in Biro) then punches him in the mouth saying "That's for four hundred years of schoolchildren still to come!". That's what I call treating the Bard with the respect he deserves!