When I first studied the AEP writing class for the first time, I was assigned to read a classical literature which is a timeless classic of English literature, wrote by a very famous English novelist. I had no doubt whatsoever with the assignment and I honestly enjoyed the book, regardless of how difficult and old the language is. However, class after class, I started to wonder, what's the point of classical literature reading? I know that literature always finds a place in every language class and I must say that I always appreciate the chances to study Thai literature, but should classical English literature own a place in an AEP class? These are the reasons why I have a second thought.
First of all, classical literature generally takes a lot of time to read. A book consists of hundreds of pages, like literature, for me would be considered as a key to improve my fluency in reading and writing. They should also be books I want to read for pleasure, otherwise, I wouldn't be able to finish the whole pile of paper. Unfortunately, Classical literature, though some of them are relatively pleasurable, couldn't help improving my fluency in English since they were written in archaic language that I barely understand. I don't think Classical literature is a good example of academic writing also. We can't use the style of writing and vocabularies in Classic literature in our further study. Then why should it be in an AEP class?
Secondly, while high school students in the States should be encouraged to appreciate the artistic Classical literature, it's unnecessary for us. The level of language in Classical literature is beyond our level of precise understanding, let alone appreciating the beautiful language. We also have lesser cultural background information and references. Instead of introducing and preparing us to the unfamiliar western culture, wouldn't it simply be .. confusing?
Moreover, as far as I'm concerned, when the class found the book boring, they stop reading and it would come down to pointless discussions where everyone sit blankly, avoiding eye contact. (And in my case, keep saying "P'Liu can you help?" since he is clearly the only student who reads everything!!!)
However, as I said to Peter earlier after class, I am more than ready to be convinced that we should read 1984 in the class this term. I, personally, don't want the class to be full of non-fictions. Something lighter would be a good change (Clearly 1984 wouldn't be a good fit then). I suggest that we go ahead and try to figure out what exactly the point of literature reading. When we go to the bottom of this, maybe we can find a way to make it oh-so-boring no more.
Well, what I heard from one of my friends who rapidly improved her English is that reading is the best way to learn English. So, I must agree that we should read.
ReplyDeleteSince I'm not so sure about the exact line between classics and non-classics, I won't argue about reading classic books. But I would argue that we'll improve our English faster if and only if we are interested in the readings. From my high school experience, I read those 1984-ish books like "To Kill the Mocking Bird", "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and so on. But I didn't enjoy much because most of these books are dark and set around the "fake world". So, it would be better to read something that can be directly related to our real-life. Also, I think reading news articles or other forms of readings which would frequently show up during universtiy courses are more challenging and practical.
So I thought of possible options:
1. Read a novel (modern one, interesting!)
2. Read many short books (less boring, more feeling of achievement, more motivation!)
3. Read a novel/short books + articles (or anything else which use very formal/professional languages)
Roong,
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting this for discussion.
Perhaps the greatest reason in favour of free speech is that it is a necessary (I don't mean useful, I really do mean necessary) condition for knowledge on a topic. Without free speech, ignorance on the topics censored is guaranteed. And in this case, if the students such as Roong are not free to say what they think, there must be a real possibility that we will continue out of ignorance to mindlessly follow practices based on beliefs that are necessarily based on ignorance and not knowledge, and that is not a good thing. This is why freedom of speech is seen as a necessary condition for good academic work - the purpose is the pursuit of knowledge, or at least a better understanding of things, and censorship always (I mean always) undercuts any possibility of knowledge on the topic censored, thus rendering any belief about it at best poorly founded, even if 100% true. Having a true belief about something, as Socrates realised 2,400 years ago, is no guarantee of knowledge.
And Roong is right: if we are going to spend a lot of time and effort reading something, we want to be sure that that time is being well spent, and a free and open discussion of the good and bad points is necessary to ensuring that, so this discussion does matter.
Now, that I've made the connection between this topic and the free speech topic, I'll start a new comment to essay (OED, v., 1.a. my reasons for reading fiction in class.
Why read literary classics in class?
ReplyDeleteBefore trying to answer this question, I want to ask another one: Why or how does a piece of writing, in any language, become a classic of that culture? Why is Homer's Iliad the classic of Western culture? Why is Shakespeare a classic? Why is the Thai Ramakien a classic? And why is 1984 a modern classic of English? Even more modern, what gives Cormac McCarthy's 2006 novel The Road a claim to classic status?
With the exception of Thai literature's Ramakien, which I have not read and am wholly incompetent to judge, I do think that all of the works I listed above deserve the title "classic". But why? What is it about them that makes them classics?
It is not, as Roong correctly suggests, because they are easy to read or becasue they are fun (¶2 & 4). None of the works I've listed are easy, and the more modern they are, the more difficult. Anyone who has tried reading McCarthy's brilliant novel will realise that it is not easy reading. And "fun" is not the word that comes to my mind when I think of them either, although there is a lot of fun in Shakespeare, and Homer certainly has plenty of action. No, if I want to relax without effort for an hour I choose something like John Grisham or Harry Potter - great stories, well told, gripping and ... fun to read. But not literature. Not likely to enter the canon of ordained English classical literature. (And the likes of Dan Brown should go immediately to hell for eternal burning, although I thought the movie version of The da Vinci Code was fun - easy, mindless and pleasantly entertaining.)
And this leads to another question: Why do we value, and make the effort, to read classical literature in our own or other languages?
I love Shakespeare, but when I first read him at the tender age of 12, forced into it by my English teacher, it was not love at first sight, not even with all the bloody action, mysterious witches and exciting plot of Macbeth. And there wasn't much of the Romeo-and-Juliet instant infatuation when I met that soppy couple the next year. The language is so different to modern English as to be virtually a new language to learn. And I think I was just too young and immature to have any hope of reading Shakespeare except as a boring and seemingly pointless activity because the teachers said to do it. But somewhere between 13 and 16, something changed. Having read enough to get over the language difficulties, I could start to see the jokes, the hear the rhymes and rhythms of the perfectly chosen words that dripped so seemingly effortlessly and naturally to tell an exciting or fun story. Phrases and sentences started to lodge in my brain, and I looked forward to hearing or reading them again in context. The language and story increasingly melded together into an inceasingly perfect unity, with ever more layers of meaning to be wrought from its seamless surface.
Which all makes me think that perhaps Roong is right. Certainly, I would have to agree with her that since the precise choice of language is an essential element of literature, it might be asking too much to require a sufficient mastery of it to move beyond the forced reading stage to the pleasure that comes from reading great writing. Even when the language is not "archaic" (and not even Shakespeare is really archaic), for example with Cormac McCarthy, it is certainly challenging, and although it is important to challenge students to push them to levels they have not previously reached, those levels do need to be in something that will pay off fairly quickly. And I'm not sure that literature is best calculated to do that. Or at least, not literature which does not come with some other purpose that constitutes a stronger main purpose.
ReplyDeleteJohn Stuart Mill, for example, is a great writer, but when we read his "archaic" language, which is a little later than Jane Austen's, it was for the ideas. And this does seem to me the only solid reason for reading anything in an AEP class: to practise turning words into the ideas their writers wanted to express so that we can do things with the ideas, which is what academic work is all about in any language. In the case of novels such as Of Mice and Men, Lord of the Flies or 1984, the story presents ideas that are worth discussing and writing about: is it right to kill the hopeless, whether dog or man? Is racism still prevalent in the US? Is human nature really as awful as Golding shows it? Does strong leadership require moral decency? Why does democracy fail?
I think this is a strong reason for studying classic literature. But is it a strong enough reason to justify the time and effort? I have to confess, I'm not sure that it is.
So, why do AEP classes always (?) include a novel?
Is it just a habit that no one has thought to seriously question? A habit based on good intentions that really don't hold up very well to a critical examination? (This is where my previous post is proved relevant.) Those good intentions likely include such things as: extensive reading to broaden the vocabulary base, learning to deal wth new vocabulary, learning to understand implied ideas, and so on, and probably also the idea that it was useful to provide some cultural background as well as linguistic competence. But most (all?) of these things can be done just as well using other texts that are more explicitly academic. And as Roong also pointed out after class, a better introduction to modern popular culture can be gained through watching movies.
At the risk of sounding elitist, I'm now wondering if the AEP program really is the place to be trying to impart a familiarity with the highter forms of Western culture. How important should an awareness of higher culture be in an academic language class? How important should it be in any education?
After I've read almost all of the post, at first, I need to confess that I agree with Roong'ideas of reading. I always wonder when I was reading Lord of the flies last semester, why I need to read this? The reason why I think like this is like what Roong said, as it is a classic literature, its words and writing style are somehow much more difficult than what we see and use in normal life or even in the academic ( I mean in our university), we won't see any writing style like the classic literature, except you choose to study in the faculty of art or literature, so you might see these kind of writing. So at first, I saw no need to read this and I quite agree with Roong. And after I read both Grace and Peter's persuasive comment, I realize that even if we read the modern novel, we also face up with new vocab and we need to try like we read the classic one. Even though, you might feel like you would learn more if you read the modern one, but what if Peter let us read the modern one and the student still not to read it, is it help by changing to the modern one?
ReplyDeleteSo I think whatever we assign to read as long as you read it, it must improve your english for sure. Just like when you are studying in the university, you sometimes can choose only the faculty, you might face with the subject that you don't like, but you still need to pass it since you want to graduate. In this case, if we are assigned to read classic literature, we just need to put more effort on it and that's it.
Finally I want to say that whatever you guys choose to read its ok for me.
Actually, i do agree with all Roong ideas especially in the second point about the culture difference. i think it is not necessary to our class at all because the only one thing we expected is to improve academic English skill. For Grace, i was surprised with Grace's thought about the reading options. If i have a chance to choose one, I would not choose the novel as well.
ReplyDeletePeter, I do understand what you commented but I have something secret(or not) to tell you. As my experience that i studied AEP for 3 terms, I found that when teachers gave the outside readings, students always go online to look for the summary. So i think that is the reading is not boring or too difficult to understand, they would not do like that. Also, I remember the time that we had (failed) reading discussion that Roong mentioned before. I'm afraid to read any classical English books and i'm afraid to be a person who always sit with silence and avoid eye contact from everyone.
Milk,
ReplyDeleteI always assume that students will go online for ideas, such as are found in summaries. Students do the same thing in every country. And I do it.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with seeing what other people think - it's one reason I encourage you to read your classmate's answers to questions.
However, teachers then set exam questions, or essay questions, that make it difficult to do well without having actually read and understood the material. When I put a limit on the chapters you can use to support an idea about a character in Lord of the Flies, and require that you cite evidence from the text, it doesn't matter if you've agreed with someone else's main idea or not - you still have to go through the novel to find the textual support within my limits.
And I haven't seen any online source yet that would answer the question: How does Steinbeck present the killing of Candy's dog in chapter 3 of Of Mice and Men?
But perhaps you're right, and we should stick to journal articles and less famous readings that are not so conveniently summarized online.
Your comments remind me of when I first read Plato - it was very helpful to have my professor's guidance, but also to read other interpretations. It gave me ideas to look for. As I gained more experience and confidence, I relied less and less on such secondary sources, and became increasingly confident about stating and supporting my own ideas based on the primary sources. Including saying where Plato seems confused and just plain wrong. (But I also have Aristotle to support me there, except where he is also wrong.)
Another thought: I sometimes know when, and from where, a student has gotten what sounds like a good idea. So I ask them to provide the support, or argue that it's wrong. (Online sources are not always reliable, and summaries don't usually provide the supporting detail, just the main idea. Jack is hte only natural leader on the island. "That's a good idea. What is your support for it? When he is twice defeated in the votes, and when Roger ignores and easily intimidates him, he does not seem much of a leader.")
Nan has also raised a good point - I always advise students not to try to learn all of the new words in Lord of the flies precisely because they are so literary and removed not only from ordinary English but also academic English, that they should not even appear in a good dictionary for you to be using. Words such as coign and flink are not listed in Advanced Learner's Dictionaries for good reasons.
ReplyDeleteI'm a bit disappointed that nobody wants to convince me to read literature in this class. I always feel so COOL holding a copy of English literature from an AEP class on BTS and such. Makes me look smarter than I really am. And I can't force myself to read ones on my own also. Truly disappointed here.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I have to disagree with Peter on one point. Who said literature isn't fun, Peter? I always love reading Thai literatures in and outside of class. The language is always so beautiful, so well written, and so unexpectedly clever. I'm a fan of Sunthornphu's work. He's funny. Very far from gloomy and boring. I can totally read Thai literature for pleasure. I wouldn't say I understand everything but I truly appreciate the language and for me that's all that matters.
No, no, no.
ReplyDeleteI do think that literature is often fun. Although I said that that wasn't the word that immediately came to mind, I did immediately qualify that for Shakespeare, and also Homer (June 14, 2011 11:04 PM). If I was writing an essay, I might have made some major changes there when I was revising to avert such misunderstandings (I don't always agree on reviewing it with I write and publish in haste on blogs - sometimes the only solution is to wait and hope it is quickly pushed out of sight). But apart from Pride and Prejudice, whose jokes and humour on almost every page definitely make it fun to read, and to read again, and again, and again, (although the language might get in the way a bit) the AUA selection of novels does tend to be a bit gloomy as Grace noted this morning.
It's a pity Romeo and Juliet isn't an option - it's full of fun on multiple levels, from the earthy sexual innuendo to puns and jokes.
Can something be literature if it's boring? (I don't think that fun is the opposite of boring - things can be enjoyable, even entertaining, without being fun. But perhaps now we're disagreeing about the meaning of fun?
And thank you for disagreeing with me.
Will a handout with "Plato" boldly printed on the front do for the BTS?
Well, I also think Plato is quite ......... fun. But to be caught holding "Plato" on BTS is more likely to be considered a "Nerd" instead of cool.
ReplyDeleteOn a second thought I'd rather use the word enjoyable instead. There! We now agree that literature can be enjoyable.
And no, Romeo and Julliet, to me seems like it was written in latin. I'm glad it's not a choice.
Now that I think of it, there was a well argued essay pushing for some poetry (Nan was persuaded), and some of Shakespeare's sonnets are probably OK language-wise. And the sonnets are strictly limited to 14 lines.
ReplyDeleteBut a single page is a pretty flimsy handout.