NOTE: No reading for Wednesday, since I want to wait until after Spring Break to resume our reading schedule (we'll be reading The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayaam starting the Wednesday after we return, so if you want to read some poetry over the break, start with that). Instead, I want to have a 'big picture' discussion about literature as a way of taking stock what we've learned this semester and where we intend to go from here.
Answer TWO of the following...
Q1: Even though you might not have read many (or any) of the works in this class before, why do you think they've remained literary classics since the early 19th century? Why do people keep reading Austen and Shelley's novels, as well as the poetry of the Romantics? Since many authors of the same period are completely forgotten, what keeps these works on college syllabi and in bookstores (or nowadays, just Amazon: and note that Frankenstein is ranked at #5 in Literature on Amazon currently).
Q2: Many people object to using modern ideas and theories (such as feminism, or Marxism, etc.) to interpret older works. These critics say that literature must be read in terms of its own time, without recourse to anachronistic views and ideas. Even though Mary Shelley's mother was a proto-feminist, she was hardly the kind of feminist we find today, and might have rejected some of its implications. So what do you think: can we read literature of 1818 from the lens of 2016 ideas and aesthetics? Or do we need to forget what we know in order to read it 'correctly'?
Q3: There is an increasing trend in colleges and universities to do away with survey courses such as this one, as some scholars (both liberal and conservative) find them narrow, elitist, or irrelevant. These critics feel that the focus of college courses should be on topics more relevant to modern society, and more representative of the diversity of our students and culture. Quite honestly, classes full of "dead white males/females" leave out many voices and perspectives, and can make students feel that they are the only way to read literature. Is there a good argument for keeping with tradition and teaching surveys of British and American literature?
Q4: Thinking about modern bestsellers and works you regularly read for entertainment, what is most different about those works and the ones we read for class? Are books fundamentally still the same, though separated by older language and characters? Or have books (esp. fiction) fundamentally changed over the centuries? Does reading, say, The Hunger Games or Games of Thrones prepare you to read these works...or do you need to learn how to read older works and work 'harder' to appreciate them?
1.) All of these works weren't simply works of one person - they were stating a common theme in the society but in a different way. Instead of using cliches or just saying what everyone around them was, these artists use their creativity to address issues and beauty. They have remained alive because they are a retelling of both the tragedy and the glory that was taking place at their time, and destroying them or disregarding them would leave us with only the redundant facts that all history books state. Instead, we see these events and changes through individual eyes and can experience [their] new ways of thinking by reading their works.
ReplyDelete3.) I find myself being sort of on the fence about this one. Not because I think the course material is irrelevant, but I do think we need to focus our attention more heavily on the works of modern writers. Instead of doing away with the earlier writings all together, colleges should simply offer (and require for English degrees) courses that focus heavily on modern literature. These older works are an important part of keeping the history of mankind alive. We don't want just a bunch of facts from those times, we also want to be captivated by good stories from the time that encapsulate the ideas and feelings from when they were written. That being said, I do think we overlook the history of today when it comes to teaching the literature in classes, so I don't feel that either one trumps the other. I feel they are both equally as important and saying one is better than another is saying "the time I live in is more important that the time someone else lived in." It's inaccurate and they both matter.
Great responses...the modern/classic divide will never be completely surmounted, but we need to keep them in balance, as you suggest. They both matter, and the modern works help us appreciate what came before if we read with open minds.
DeleteElyse Marquardt
ReplyDeleteQ1: The reason that these are called "timeless classics" is just that: because they are timeless. Through the decades and centuries, there is always something fresh that can be found in these works to keep new readers interested. In Shelley's time, it was the Romantic-gothic feel; in our time, it's the excitement of looking through and finding the hidden undertones and deeper meanings. There are so many layers to these stories that we can always find a new topic to discuss in college courses and even in our personal readings for pleasure. It's like an onion: starting with the author's background and going from there into the story itself, there is layer upon layer that we can peel back and study in a new light.
Q4: In class a few days ago, we discussed how Shelley wrote Frankenstein because she actually wanted to; only later in life did she begin cranking out novels just to make a living. Even though she herself admitted that she was frightened by the story that came out of her mind, she still enjoyed writing it and was able to express herself in its composition. I believe that a lot of popular books now are written solely for profit. After all, how many novels are really needed in a series in order for the story to be told in a complete and meaningful way? Certainly not as many as authors have begun including in their new hit series today. I've spoken with many people who say that they enjoy popular books today, but struggle to get into the novels that were written two hundred years ago. This seems to imply that people have to "practice" reading classics before they can really appreciate them. But once the effort is put in, there is so much reward! It's worth it.
Elyse Marquardt
Ha, I completely agree with #4--writing has become such a business, and we have so many series that should have ended at book 1. What would writers write if they didn't have to make money? While Shelley did write some other good books, none were at the level of Frankenstein, when she was writing for herself, her husband, and for her ideas. You can't write the same way when you're a single mother and need to support yourself. Same goes for anyone writing today.
DeleteQ2: I think it is fine to read literature through the lens of its time, but I do not think we should be restricted to one focal point. If readers could not connect stories of the past with their own experiences, "timeless classics" would quickly fade away. The great thing about literature is that it has the ability to change and transform simply through its reader. I believe Mary Shelly wrote a feminist novel. Perhaps it is a little different than what we would consider "feminist" today, but that does not mean the two are not related. Stories should be allowed to grow and expand, just as their authors intended.
ReplyDeleteQ3: I find that argument contradictory. Many of the earliest authors pushed for diversity. They wrote stories that urged their readers to step out of what was conventional and question their own lives. They gave a new perspective that society had not seen before. Since the classics were written many things have indeed changed. We've made progress. We have culturally diverse authors and stories. We have stories from multiple perspectives. No change, however, can decrease the value of reading the literature that serves as the foundation for all other stories.
Great responses: the classics are classic because they are so rooted in the past--otherwise, they would be lost among so much modern literature. They help us see this world and relate it to our own, to challenge what the world used to be and what it still can be. AFter all, we can't understand what we have today unless we question where it came from, and reading is the ultimate way to do that.
DeleteQ2: The great thing about literature is it is open to interpretation. Everything changes over time. I think that is what makes these books that we still love today so great because they change as we change. We can notice many different things that were happening back then and apply them to today’s society. Reading these books also allows us to see the progression of whatever issues may have been going on then. It would be like reading Fredrick Douglass’ speech and saying that he did not have any impact on W.E.B. DuBois’ work. Frankenstein may have been fictional, but it still had underlying ideas. All literature is important regardless of what it is. They say, “hindsight is always 20/20” which is why we need to look back on past literature through the scope of today’s ideas.
ReplyDeleteQ3: I think people have a very narrow mind of what literature is. I know in high school I felt miserable when in English classes. It was not my absolute favorite subject. I did not see the point in reading material that had nothing to do with what I wanted to do with my life. I then came to college and had to take a class where we read a multitude of books. We analyzed them and the meaning behind them. Although, I wasn’t necessarily pumped about taking the course to begin with, it quickly became my favorite class to go to. I looked forward to the understanding my English teachers in high school had. These survey courses are here to open doors for those who are unsure of what they want to become. I changed my major after that course and haven’t looked back since. Coming into college most kids have no idea what they want to become; or they have the wrong idea of what they would like to be. These courses open doors for those students who need a little motivation. Taking away a survey course would be like taking away a piece of history. All different types of art are necessary for us to understand what was going on during different time periods. If you take these courses away you’re essentially taking away history.
Great connection with Douglass and DuBois: clearly we can see the influence and the family tree of thought. It's exciting to trace this literary geneology by going backwards and seeing what now looks inevitable, but was once completely unknown. Shelley had no idea what works she would influence and create. We have to read her work as she did, without the benefit of history, AND as someone who knows the whole story. It's a unique position for a reader, and why in some ways we're more qualified to appreciate it than the readers of the 1820's.
DeleteQ2 I think both sides of this issue are right. I am a big fan of reading a book for what it originally means, and not viewing through the eyes of today. I think the author had something important they were trying to say when they wrote the book and it is our job as the reader to find their original purpose and not try to give it our purpose as the reader. With this being said once we figure that out it is good to apply the author’s ideas to today’s society and see that the same ideas they had back then still apply to us today. Certain theories I feel can cloud our judgment when we are reading, so it is very important if you read it how the author originally intended it to be read.
ReplyDeleteQ3I’m a huge fan of learning what I am going to eventually teach in class. I think the idea that what we learn in British and American literature are relevant to today’s society. I believe history will repeat itself, so it is important to see historical context in the readings in these two classes. Some of the most valuable lessons I’ve learned about American and British history has been in my English classes that cover that. I also have got a better sense of how America has changed through literature. We get a good view of everything that went on in American through the writings. This is why we should keep these classes.
Steven Shelley
Yes, as a future teacher, you have to know way more than you will ever teach. Not only the works you imagine bringing into your classroom, but the works behind those works--as well as the history. The more you can 'see' as a teacher, the more effective you will be. The worst teachers are those whose knowledge ends at the edge of a book. They can't see beyond it.
DeleteQ2: It is impossible to forget what we know and read works as they were in 1818. It is worthwhile to try, but reading an older book through a modern lens is kind of the point. If a work was static, we wouldn't be talking about it almost 200 years later. The fact that it is still relevant after so many years speaks to its quality. It has themes that still resonate today.
ReplyDeleteQ4: Works have changed some, but the overall formula is generally the same. Newer works can be easier to read because we are reading a book by someone who lives in our time, and is more similar to ourselves than someone who wrote 200 years ago. Because authors are always borrowing from other authors, and generally borrowing from older ones, reading a modern novel can prepare a reader for an older work. It enhances the understanding and enriches the work when the reader can see the connections between old and modern books.
Good points--novels and literature is at best inspiration, at worst outright thievery. Ideas are picked through like worn toys at a flea market, polished off, and presented as something new. But that's what makes literature so unique: each voice changes it into something new and unexpected. The best writers are those who know the history and can present it for their readers rather than those who think they're original because they have no idea what came before them.
DeleteAshley Bean
ReplyDelete2. The great thing about literature is that it can be interpreted in limitless ways. Personally, I like to know the backstory of a work so that I can appreciate what is was for its time, but I think it’s more important for me, a student in the 21st century, to interpret it in useful ways for my time. Otherwise, these works will become irrelevant and fall out of our grasp. Stories reflect reality, and whether the authors mean to or not, those stories will reflect different realities at different times for different people. I can see why some people think it’s pointless, because if the author didn’t even know our feminism to day why should we force it? But being able to apply these works to our times allow us to engage with them and the ideas present.
3. I can understand that argument, we do seem to read the same kind of books in a way. But these survey classes are also about history of literature, seeing where and how it started and what ideas were present during those times. Like I said above, these works can never be irrelevant as long as we’re reading and engaging with them, and survey courses allow us to do that. Reading and interpreting these works allow us to learn how to interpret more recent works. They’re kind of like a strategy of literature course, with some history too.
Yes, literature confuses people because it's so much a part of history, and we have to appreciate and grapple with that history; but it we understand it solely in terms of history, we lose touch with it, too. It has to be a work of the past that is consciously reinterpreted for the present. It exists in both worlds, outside of time. That's what makes a true work of art.
DeleteQ2: I think that it is fine to read a classic novel and apply modern ideas and aesthetics to it. What makes them classic is that they remain relevant to people throughout the years, and to force people to interpret only with the views of the time is to deny the book its ability to adjust, change, and remain relevant. You would effectively force it to be stagnant and kill the book.
ReplyDeleteQ4: Personally, I find that one of the biggest difference between classic works and modern books is that the classics have depth to them that modern books tend to lack. Classics – especially Romantic ones – often contain metaphors and hidden meanings which make them relevant and interesting long after they were written. Modern books focus more on their story, which can make them successes in their time but can lose relevancy and interest over time.
In most instances you do have to work hard to understand an older novel, and a lot of the time it is because they contain words that typically don’t get used in day-to-day conversation. But once you start figuring out how to pull the story apart and look at it in different ways it becomes fun. After you’ve looked at it and formed your own opinions as to what it means and why it was written you can talk to other people about, discuss and share ideas, or flat-out argue/fight when you disagree. Reading a classic novel can be challenging, but it can also be worth it.
I wonder if modern works (most of them, or only a few of them) are truly less deep, or if we just haven't had 100 years to read them. A lot of things become more powerful with time and with better acquaintance. I do think we have less of a culture of reading and art, so it's not as conducive to making 'great' literature. But a lot of it is time, and I bet many works will become classics, given a certain historical perspective.
DeleteQ1 I think these books hit it big in their day was because they represented the majority oft people in that time. Everyone bought the book because they found out what it was about. They stay relevant cause they stay relevant... People would stop reading them if they couldn't be applied to a modern situation. Q2. Regardless of the time period, I think personal opinions and thoughts (such as Shelly's feminist perspectives) have a possibility of existing and honestly there's no way of proving that they didn't. They didn't have the modern influences we have so we obviously can't assume their opinions and perspectives were derived from those events BUT we can assume that something similar might've occurred to influence the texts. I do think it's easier to understand if you think of it in its original time frame though.
ReplyDeleteWell, we can prove if something did or didn't exist, but the question might be, what if the writer writes something that makes more sense 100 years later, even if they didn't necessarily intend it. Or, what if they were simply in advance of their time? Literature has a way of communicating forward better than to its time (sometimes). Lucky for us, we're happy to receive those messages.
Delete