4 ms·

The meaning of a word is determined by its context, so it's not particularly significant or objectionable that "books" is used to mean fiction here. I think you

The meaning of a word is determined by its context, so it's not particularly significant or objectionable that "books" is used to mean fiction here. I think you're being a bit dramatic with regards to having to read fiction in school. Society has decided that reading fiction is part of a well-rounded education. The same objections you make could be made about having to learn algebra; most people can object that they will never directly use it in later life and that they could have spend the time learning other things. In both cases an argument for teaching it is that it exercises the mind, developing a sense of abstraction in the case of algebra, and imagination and empathy in the case of literature, I would argue. It is not useful to compare the value of fiction versus non-fiction, they have completely different functions, and there's no reason for it to be a case of either/or.

graycat 12y ago
> The meaning of a word is determined by its context, so it's not particularly significant or objectionable that "books" is used to mean fiction here. While I believe that books should mean, say, what is sold on Amazon or what is in a large public or academic library, for "context," here on HN books are more like the ones I listed, e.g., Knuth, and not what is emphasized in NYR. Gee, is there some irony here? > I think you're being a bit dramatic with regards to having to read fiction in school. But being "dramatic" is heavily what fictional literature is about, right? More irony here? > Society has decided that reading fiction is part of a well-rounded education. Well, if not "society" then a lot of people in K-12 education, people, who, a guess, were English majors in college. There's some social-academic field self-perpetuation here, maybe? > The same objections you make could be made about having to learn algebra; most people can object that they will never directly use it in later life and that they could have spend the time learning other things. I explain more in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8410549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8410549 in this tread. There I mention that in the grade 1-12 school I went to, algebra was optional. I took it, sure, along with all the math that was offered. In that post, I also explained that much of my objection to fictional literature was the amount of it required with significant math and science having many fewer years and all those optional. So, in grades 1-12 I want to, and as I explain at a comparatively good school, the dichotomy is not just fictional literature versus algebra but 12 years of such literature, required, versus just four years of math (beyond trivial arithmetic), one year of chemistry, and one year of physics, all optional and none very advanced. Bummer. > It is not useful to compare the value of fiction versus non-fiction, they have completely different functions, and there's no reason for it to be a case of either/or. Well, we can compare years required, and this long after the Age of Reason and the rise of the STEM fields, the 12 years of English as essentially just fictional literature, with, say, just one year of physics, is way, way too much. We should be in line for some disruption. At the very least the 12 years should teach a lot of writing, no, not creative writing or how to write fictional literature but writing for business, law, medicine, politics, and the STEM fields. Maybe eventually such writing lessons could actually leak over into journalism? > In both cases an argument for teaching it is that it exercises the mind, developing a sense of abstraction in the case of algebra, and imagination and empathy in the case of literature, I would argue. I can have some agreement with such an argument, but there is much more to consider. And, as simple as your argument is, it was never clear in the 14 years of English I was force fed. In fact, no reasonable purpose was made clear. Yes, it was suggested that some of fictional literature could teach about people. Hmm .... Eventually I did learn some about people, via experience and some well respected materials out of, say, the clinical psychology field, especially E. Fromm, The Art of Loving, i.e., love and emotions, psychology, and religion. Now that I have learned, I can return to some of fictional literature and see that, yes, some lessons were there as examples of, say, candidate human behavior. E.g., can watch the movie In Harm's Way where there are four women: One is really a total slut; she is married but, still, when her husband is not around, likes to go to a party, get drunk, pick a man, go to a beach, go skinny dipping, and spend the night. Another woman wants to be a slut but hides it even from herself, E.g., she is engaged and there behaving with high propriety but, when her fiance is not around, goes to a party, undresses to her undies, and tempts her escort, whom she suspected needed no tempting, to rape her. The third is an excellent version of a wonderful, perceptive, supportive, devoted, loving wife and mother to be. And the fourth is an excellent example of a woman for a man past being a father again. So, Otto Preminger gave a nice range of possibilities. But, unless walk into the movie already knowing these lessons, possibilities, fairly well, will likely miss the significance. Thus, the movie is more entertainment, say, to reinforce what the audience already knows, instead of a way to learn more. Really, mostly, over the years, I've had to conclude that fictional literature is a poor way to learn much of anything significant about people; I will grant that there are a lot of examples that might provide more on your "empathy"; even here, if that is one of the intended lessons, then it is taught indirectly and ineffectively. Background 1 -- Seriousness: When I read some fiction and take it seriously, I want clear presentations of the points being made and good evidence for the reality, correctness, and practical relevance of the points. Background 2 -- Art: Or, I can like some of art, and one definition is the communication, interpretation of human experience, emotion. Conclusion: Instead of such seriousness or even such art, I finally concluded that the content of nearly all of fictional literature is just presenting to the reader vicarious, escapist, fantasy, emotional experience entertainment. Teaching good, solid lessons about people? Not very much. So, here we have a case of literary criticism of literary criticism. Net, for the teaching of English, I suggest: (1) Cut way back the required time spent on fictional literature. (2) For the fictional literature taught, be much more clear on just what the content is supposed to mean and why we should take it seriously. (3) Do much more in teaching writing other than creative writing.

graycat 12y ago

> The meaning of a word is determined by its context, so it's not particularly significant or objectionable that "books" is used to mean fiction here. While I believe that books should mean, say, what is sold on Amazon or what is in a large public or academic library, for "context," here on HN books are more like the ones I listed, e.g., Knuth, and not what is emphasized in NYR. Gee, is there some irony here? > I think you're being a bit dramatic with regards to having to read fiction in school. But being "dramatic" is heavily what fictional literature is about, right? More irony here? > Society has decided that reading fiction is part of a well-rounded education. Well, if not "society" then a lot of people in K-12 education, people, who, a guess, were English majors in college. There's some social-academic field self-perpetuation here, maybe? > The same objections you make could be made about having to learn algebra; most people can object that they will never directly use it in later life and that they could have spend the time learning other things. I explain more in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8410549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8410549 in this tread. There I mention that in the grade 1-12 school I went to, algebra was optional. I took it, sure, along with all the math that was offered. In that post, I also explained that much of my objection to fictional literature was the amount of it required with significant math and science having many fewer years and all those optional. So, in grades 1-12 I want to, and as I explain at a comparatively good school, the dichotomy is not just fictional literature versus algebra but 12 years of such literature, required, versus just four years of math (beyond trivial arithmetic), one year of chemistry, and one year of physics, all optional and none very advanced. Bummer. > It is not useful to compare the value of fiction versus non-fiction, they have completely different functions, and there's no reason for it to be a case of either/or. Well, we can compare years required, and this long after the Age of Reason and the rise of the STEM fields, the 12 years of English as essentially just fictional literature, with, say, just one year of physics, is way, way too much. We should be in line for some disruption. At the very least the 12 years should teach a lot of writing, no, not creative writing or how to write fictional literature but writing for business, law, medicine, politics, and the STEM fields. Maybe eventually such writing lessons could actually leak over into journalism? > In both cases an argument for teaching it is that it exercises the mind, developing a sense of abstraction in the case of algebra, and imagination and empathy in the case of literature, I would argue. I can have some agreement with such an argument, but there is much more to consider. And, as simple as your argument is, it was never clear in the 14 years of English I was force fed. In fact, no reasonable purpose was made clear. Yes, it was suggested that some of fictional literature could teach about people. Hmm .... Eventually I did learn some about people, via experience and some well respected materials out of, say, the clinical psychology field, especially E. Fromm, The Art of Loving, i.e., love and emotions, psychology, and religion. Now that I have learned, I can return to some of fictional literature and see that, yes, some lessons were there as examples of, say, candidate human behavior. E.g., can watch the movie In Harm's Way where there are four women: One is really a total slut; she is married but, still, when her husband is not around, likes to go to a party, get drunk, pick a man, go to a beach, go skinny dipping, and spend the night. Another woman wants to be a slut but hides it even from herself, E.g., she is engaged and there behaving with high propriety but, when her fiance is not around, goes to a party, undresses to her undies, and tempts her escort, whom she suspected needed no tempting, to rape her. The third is an excellent version of a wonderful, perceptive, supportive, devoted, loving wife and mother to be. And the fourth is an excellent example of a woman for a man past being a father again. So, Otto Preminger gave a nice range of possibilities. But, unless walk into the movie already knowing these lessons, possibilities, fairly well, will likely miss the significance. Thus, the movie is more entertainment, say, to reinforce what the audience already knows, instead of a way to learn more. Really, mostly, over the years, I've had to conclude that fictional literature is a poor way to learn much of anything significant about people; I will grant that there are a lot of examples that might provide more on your "empathy"; even here, if that is one of the intended lessons, then it is taught indirectly and ineffectively. Background 1 -- Seriousness: When I read some fiction and take it seriously, I want clear presentations of the points being made and good evidence for the reality, correctness, and practical relevance of the points. Background 2 -- Art: Or, I can like some of art, and one definition is the communication, interpretation of human experience, emotion. Conclusion: Instead of such seriousness or even such art, I finally concluded that the content of nearly all of fictional literature is just presenting to the reader vicarious, escapist, fantasy, emotional experience entertainment. Teaching good, solid lessons about people? Not very much. So, here we have a case of literary criticism of literary criticism. Net, for the teaching of English, I suggest: (1) Cut way back the required time spent on fictional literature. (2) For the fictional literature taught, be much more clear on just what the content is supposed to mean and why we should take it seriously. (3) Do much more in teaching writing other than creative writing.