Hi guys, I was just wondering if anyone felt this way.

I love books, but I absolutely hate literature class at school. Why? Because they want you to identify things in books (like themes) that could be in interpreted differently by anyone, yet there is only one "right theme" or "right symbolized emotion" whatever. Or identifying symbolism, what characters represent, etc.

So, I was wondering: why is it like that? Why do people want to read a book just to pick it apart and get down to every little detail, as opposed to just reading the book for, well, the pleasure of reading the book and just enjoying the plot and story? What ever happened to that? Just reading to read?


Has anyone else ever wondered that, or am I the only one?

I do wonder that, but I think that if you read the book for pleasure you absorb the themes anyway. In any case, high school English classes are really quite pointless.

I didn't like picking apart literature at school either - in terms of anolysing and things, though I sometimes enjoyed the actual interpretation (we did that for poems a lot). If it's a story book with a plot I just like to read it for amusemant; there are some other forms of writing that make me think more about them. (I also like trying to interpret dreams or some paintings). Why people do it (or why we learn it at school), I'm not sure

As for only having one "right" interpretation, it often seemed like that in class, though one time I interpreted a poem differently than expected in a test but still got my marks because I explained my interpretation. I was one of the kids who would ask "but how do we know that's the right interpretation? Did someone ask the author?"

I agree. Out of every class I've taken, I'm pretty sure literature gave me the least skills. And by least, I mean none.

Whereas as science, math, engineering, computers, etc. give you skills you can use throughout your life (and help you get a great job), what does learning to identify that crap help with? It also doesn't help that the books we read are horrible.

I feel that way too.

Even when reading for pleasure, I still actively notice these things. Only difference is there is no essay due to explain what I think. :tongue:

Wait for Eragon/Twilight/(books generally thought to be bad) become required reading.

At one point in middle school I was forced into taking a remedial reading class for no apparent reason other than the other regular classes being full... Imagine being forced to read pulp booklets that are 10~15 pages long where it would take 25 of the 26 students more than half of the class period to complete.

I'll only notice it if I really like the book. Which I often don't when it comes to books I have to read for school.

That's odd. You're using those skills right now.
You use those skills every time you read a book or watch a film, even if it don't realize it.
You're using those skills every time you play a video game that has a plot structure, characters or any type of thematic device.

You were not born understanding literary themes and plot devices. You learned them through experience. (school classes being one of them)
You do use that knowledge every time you read.

I agree that reading books in class was often tedious, but the teachers are mainly trying to develop an appreciation for reading.
Seems like it worked, since you still love books.

My reading classes really had nothing to do with liking books. I like books for the overall story, not because *insert character name here* represents *insert emotion/idea/whatever here*.

Maybe I had better teachers than you, but they certainly wouldn't have turned down an independent anolysis, in fact, providing you could back it up with evidence, you were rewarded for it.

That said, it makes a difference if you actually like the types of books you're reading. I couldn't stand doing all those depression era books written by some smug idiot in the 1960s, because it's just so alien to me.But I did enjoy studying Shakespeare's and Orwell's works, and the better poetry of the 19th century (20th century poetry is inevitably crap and pretentious, devoid of any beauty or passion, 21st is generally completely moronic).


It svcks if you don't like the stuff you're studying, I for one refuse to read anything by Iain Banks ever again, but you just have to keep looking for something you like. I'm reading Edgar Rice Burroughs' A Princess of Mars, a wonderfully ridiculous sci fi adventure, and yet they'd never let you read it in school.

I guess for me, I see all those themes and such automatically, but that's only because I spent time at school learning how to do it.

I understand, but surely you understand that when "one small Hobbit saves the entire world by destroying one small Ring," it was not just coincidence that they are both small. You understand what the authour is saying by having the hero and the weapon of destruction both being seen as small and forgotten. Right?
It isn't necessary to loving the book, but it is there and you can sense it.
(just for a quick example)

You have to learn how to develop your understanding of how these themes work. It doesn't just happen overnight.
The more you read, the more you understand the concepts. Reading in class helped you learn, because you have a teacher who can guide you to the ideas.

I've got favourite books that I'll reread normally each year, and I'm always finding new perspectives, themes, imagery and fun stuff like that. I recently read a dissertation of a friends' about Brave New World that made me look at one of the characters in a completely new light, and I've read that book loads of times. It just depends how you get pleasure from things I suppose. For some people, dissecting and anolysing a book svcks all the fun out of it. For me it just makes it more interesting.
I also studied English and Sociology at Uni, so I'll read dystopian literature while thinking about the work of people like Foucault and see things in a way I hadn't before. It's also great because there's a chance to really read between the lines with some books and it can be fun to wonder whether something was a conscious decision, a byproduct of the culture/society/age they lived in, or purely your own ideas that you've managed to fit in to the novel. It's good for discussing with friends too - I can't imagine there's much to say about books if you're just going to recap the plotline.
As for it being taught in school - I'd say it's not just the basics of reading (which is pretty essential I'd say), but I think that you first get a grasp of various anolytical skills in early English classes.
It also makes certain topics accessible for kids as well I reckon. Take Harry Potter; you've got genocide, racism, eugenics, the death of parents and other trusted authority figures, (corrupt) politics, and probably a load of other concepts I'm forgetting that might be quite difficult to introduce to a child. A kid can read or have these books read to them and just enjoy a fun story, but maybe when they're a little older they can look back and read a little deeper into it.

That is a good example. I get your point.



Another good point about Harry Potter. I stand corrected.

When I read, I guess these things are just absorbed into my subconscious. They click, but I don't really like to acknowledge them. Some things are obvious, like how in A Game of Thrones there is no explainable "coincidence" as to why the 6 Stark children find 6 Direwolves in the forest around their dead parent. Some of them are less so, like what the ending of Cather in the Rye is supposed to mean, or what underlying meaning is in every single statement in Waiting For Godot. I think that books written thematically are often higher quality than just a story for a story's sake, but at the end of the day I think the important part is what you walk away with. And even if you don't notice it, there's still something there that you learn from it.

The answer they want to give you is that it helps you build critical thinking skills and enriches your mind by making you see deeper meaning in things.

The real reason is that they need some way to grade a person on reading a book, and the only way to be sure you've actually read the damn thing is to make you answer questions about it.

It's become a perverse mix of the two in practice. Personally I hate English classes, and if I ever have to go within 10 feet of A Separate Peace or another Christ-figure-symbolism I'll scream. Literally. I had to read that horrible book three times, AND listen to the audio book, AND watch the movie. What kind of jacked up curriculum has you read the same book in English I, English II, and English III?

Better to do away with English as a subject and put more focus on things like creative writing and book clubs, wherein students who already know English fluently can put their skills into practice.

How to have fun in literature class:

Find (read: fabricate) themes and then support them with long, rambling explanations of how the themes relate to societal archetypes while challenging your understanding of post-modern artistic expression.

Your teacher will eat this up and will go on and on about how well-written your article was at which point you can tell the teacher in front of the entire class that you made the whole thing up and you actually thought the book was rubbish.

This. Except I'll usually throw in an essay in the form of a forum post or two My first read through is usually just a read for pleasure, not paying any special attention to symbolism, foreshadowing, etc. On rereads I usually pay more attention to how the story is written rather than just what is written, since I already know what is going to happen.

While I didn't like the majority of the book we were forced to read, I actually didn't mind anolyzing them.

Well that's the problem isn't it. How will you know English unless you've learnt it at a basic level first?

I should hope by the middle of High School you know English at a basic level.

The subject is necessary in Elementary and Middle Schools, as well as freshman English even where students learn some of the boring format points that we all need to know. But beyond that I believe the subject has outlived it's usefulness. Everything contained in English could be carried out better by more focused individual classes. Writing skills in creative writing, "enrichment" in book clubs and acting classes (where students not only read but immerse themselves in play works).

Spelling, grammar, and sentence structure, and how to read should all have been taught earlier.

For that matter all things language related should be taught earlier. Why do we wait until students have had almost 12 years of schooling before we let them take the mandatory two years of Spanish in high school? Why don't we teach them when they're young and absorb languages like sponges? There's a reason so many European students have no trouble at being functionally bilingual, whereas I guarantee 90% of the American students that took two years in high school could barely knock out a sentence in another language. By then it's simply too late.

They are trying to teach you to look for themes. The themes and symbolism they point out, and want you to learn, aren't the only themes in the book - or necessarily the theme/symbolism the author intended - they're just making sure you understand the concept.

There's no other good way to teach it, really. You can't identify something unless you know what you're looking for. If you have a different interpretation and explain it, you'll get the same credit - if your teacher is fair, anyway.

I remember reading "A Tale of Two Cities" in high school and being hounded about looking for "the red motif" which I never believed was something dikeens intentionally created - it seemed more like something an English teacher put together 100 years later. :shudders: Oh well. At least I understand the concept now.

There are some authors who do use symbolism in their stories, and if that's what you are after then there they are. However there are many who read into a story so much that they find symbolism everywhere.



This example, for example. Having the Dark Lord pour his malice into an inanimate object such as a ring make a lot more sense than pour it into a 200 lb anvil he has to lug around, or a sword or shield that can be set down. Having an unassuming hero makes for a better story than an imposing one. Imagine if Hobbies were a large war like race instead.

"I am Thorin Oakenshield, what might be your name burgalur?"

"Bilbo"

"You only have one name?"

"Don't I only need one name?"

That would have been a very different story indeed. Also if Tolkien simply wanted to make the point that Size Doesn't Matter he could have done it just fine in a few thousand less pages.To me this seems a bit of a stretch.

I had a teacher that wanted us to find racial undertones in Moby dike because the whale is white. How many other colors do you think whales come in? Which is the least common? There's your answer about the color of the whale.

I used to think the same when I was young and naive and annoyed about having to take English Lit classes when I could be out partying or playing Total War, but then I grew up and realised that no one writes anything without (consciously or unconsciously) putting a message into it. Whether you realise it or not, you'll absorb this message when you read the book and it will change (or strengthen and sustain) how you think. This goes for works of fiction as much as anything else, and so acquiring/learning critical anolysis skills is essential if you want to get through life understanding what you read and being able to take the greatest advantage of it.

Yeah, right there with you. I never really enjoyed literature anolysis class - why would you want to ruin a perfectly good book that way? (The other issue I had was with some of the "professional" critiques we'd read.... you know, the kind where it seems like the critics are just being deliberately contrived and obtuse, in order to sound more scholarly? True Art Is Pretentious, and all that rot.... )

I hate that too. Especially because they make us annotate it :banghead: