Summer Reading--Or Writing Rather
Like everyone else, I've been working on finishing up my summer english assignment, and I had a few thoughts on the matter. Firstly, I can't understand why they would possibly want one to write responses in the middle of the novel. If one hasn't finished the book, it makes it can be awfully tricky to form any insightful opinions or hypotheses about the book. As a consequence, I end up leaving all the writing until the very end. Since I'm a fairly slow writer when expounding literary analysis, it becomes tedious to write 6 or 7 single-spaced pages, and I struggle to think of enough topics to discuss.
I had a much more interesting thought though. I was thinking about what I enjoy when I read, and I realized that although I enjoy good stories, I am most captivated by really interesting ideas. If this is true for other people--which it undoubtedly is--then why do people even bother writing stories to express their ideas? Why don't all of these brilliant writers write philosophy instead of hiding all of their great ideas under layers of fictional garbage? The only answer to this is that the act of obfuscating incisive ideas is a genuine and satisfying form of art for these people. This seems rather peculiar, but one can argue with art--believe me, I've tried with disastrous results. Certainly there must also be some element of demand influencing the situation as well. Philosophy is probably not enjoyed as much as good stories, so there is a higher demand for captivating fiction. Combining the two seems to make good economical sense. One can hit both markets with a single volume.
But still, it seems strange that in the elementary K-12 education, there is an overwhelming emphasis put on literature, and almost none put on pure philosophy. This is especially true considering that the primary goal of much of the study of literature is to "de-obfuscate" the hidden philosophical ideas in fiction. But rather than discussing, arguing, and testing the validity of these philosophical ideas, the study of literature only extracts them and lays them on the table with a nifty bag of tricks involving pattern recognition. It's rather like performing integration by hand. It itself is not actually compelling unless you're somehow odd or sadistic.
That brings me to my final point, that the emphasis in the humanities in K-12 education is put in very bad places. Contrary to what people say, literary analysis is not actually useful. Sure it teaches you how to gather evidence and form an argument, but debating philosophy does the exact same thing and involves a much deeper level of analysis and inquiry. Instead of mechanically pointing out occurances of the word "red" and linking them to Curly's impending murder of that obnoxious woman on the farm in Sophomore english class, why don't we argue about things like moral systems and whether or not they are fundamentally flawed. At least that would require debating ideas, instead of wasting so much time trying to deduce the implications of mechanical literary constructions like symbols and themes. Clearly my opinion is highly biased. I don't think that literary analysis doesn't have its valid place in an elementary education, it just seems to be given the sole focus in the humanities. I'm a strong proponent of requiring 3 years of english and at least 1 year of philosophy. But instead we are left without any philosophy even available, and a way too much literature to be balanced.
The reason people hide cool ideas in fiction, I think, is because ideas are more easily digested when combined with entertaining stories. Reading straight philosophy can be tedious and demanding, whereas reading philosophy "diluted" with fiction has much more mass appeal. Plus, the demand for pure philosophy is so small that in order to get an idea considered by the masses, one has to combine it with entertaining fiction.
I do agree, however, that literary analysis is a rather pointless "skill" we learn. The only ones of us that will ever use this in real life are writers, critics, and English teachers. But we have also decided as a society that we'd rather have our high-school aged kids study concrete, easily-defined ideas with defined or nearly-defined answers, and not merely consider ideas as ideas, as we can't take a test or write a factual paper on that. Literary analysis fits this criteria. But English class could be worth all four years, if instead of nitpicking symbols and motifs in books and writing assingments that essentially only assess what we already know and are expected to just pick up, we considered the craft of creating and considering these books, and actually were taught to write better.
And you do realize that it's quite common to use double-space on the summer reading entries?
Literary analysis SHOULD be taught. In electives.
By the way, Adam, who translated the books you read by Fyodor Dostoevsky? I have seen a few translations of Crime and Punishment and they are wildy different in tone, pace, and wording. I regret reading the copy by Constance Garnette; apparently, his writing is by far the flattest and most convoluted.
Why should the public schools be responsible for teaching philosophy? How does one grade discussions or debate (I really really hope not like Johnston does)? Shouldn't emphasis be placed on preparing students for work, not life? Students are always free to follow their own academic pursuits.
The emphasis in high school, at least for the more academically motivated students, should not be placed on career-related study or vocational education. Students should develop their analytic capacity so they can learn more effectively in college and grad school, which really is vocational school. Furthermore, most students have such little idea of what they want to study that a narrow education focused on preparing students for work would force them into a study which they are uncertain they wish to pursue. Thus, vocational education this early on is potentially a complete and total waste for many people. A broad education is much more effective. High school should teach students how to learn so they can learn on their own when necessary. The most interesting and important things that people learn are almost always those that they teach to themselves, not those that are learned in school. I for one, will say that the most useful thing that I have learned in high school is how to learn and teach myself what I want.
As for the use of philosophy in education, we must consider that philosophy is based in the argumentation of abstract ideas. The ability to grasp abstract ideas is extremely useful in work and life. Additionally, argumentation and persuasion are equally important skills, especially for getting what you want. Finally, philosophy has many cultural and historical connections, which reinforce other aspects of the traditional high school education.
Colin, I agree very much that I have learned very little about writing from school. Ironically, english class consists mostly of literary analysis, and in order to convey literary analysis in a paper one must be able to write, yet we spend so little time actually learning about writing. It's not as if most people are particularly good at writing either--myself included. I think that 90% of what I know about writing comes from my own educated guessing, Mr. Boly, or my dad's girlfriend Helen, who is a writer. It was only a couple years ago that I actually went from being a bad writer to a mediocre writer. My grades haven't changed at all either. I always got by fantastically by duping my teachers with unnecessary verbiage like "exuberantly excited", etc. and lots of pedantic conjunctions and prepositions like "thus", "therefore", "a propos", etc. Unfortunately I haven't broken myself of all those bad habits...
English has the most potential of any subject. Every job (even be it begging) uses writing and speaking to convey ideas and information.
What proportion of students will ever require the ideal gas law, law of sines, or the date the Civil War began?
Admittedly, a few will. But nevertheless, the quantity of individuals that use the assortment of formulas and facts taught in science, math, and history, pales in comparison to the number who will communicate during their careers.
Unfortunately, because writing is so difficult to quantify and label, teachers leave students clueless about how to improve. Only the most rudimentary and basic feedback is supplied, along with a grade. Instead of learning, students must stumble blindly, grasping for techniques of composition. Books can assist with rewriting and conventions, but frequently fail at explaining how to actually invent good writing.
When does school start?
Not only does fiction make ideas more easily digested, it often makes it easier to explain the ideas in the first place.
I agree with Ted. The one thing I wish I actually learned in school was how to write, really write. It becomes quite frustrating to have ideas swirling around in the mind and yet only being able to clumsily put them into words.