Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
Anonymous
Studying literature in school. 2016-12-13 07:02:59 Post No. 8838417
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Studying literature in school. 2016-12-13 07:02:59 Post No. 8838417
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: general-reader_wide-ef5094ea98b1b0bbc1811d338cccd30db2fd325f-s400-c85.jpg (22KB, 400x225px) Image search:
[Google]
22KB, 400x225px
Hey y'all.
I've been thinking lately, is studying literature as a form of science that meaningful?
From high school and a few literature classes I took in college, it seems to be that the study of literature, at least at the beginner level, largely consists of reducing a work to its core staple elements.
I'm thinking of things like plot diagrams, identifying various staples like who is the hero, what kind of hero they are, etc...
I don't see what there is to gain from any of that. I assume no one here reads a book and considers these kind of topics you learn in school. In fact, I think it takes away from not only the enjoyment by making it such an arduous process, but also takes away from the writer's intentions. I think literature is often abstract, you know? I don't dissect a book while reading it, instead I finish it and then contemplate the core principles the author was trying to convey, or certain interactions that I found particularly interesting.
What do you guys think about studying literature in the way it's taught in schools versus how you or I might read a work of fiction?
>>
try graduating high school. this is an 18+ site
>>
File: 15451477_271413733274364_817982026_n.jpg (20KB, 500x500px) Image search:
[Google]
20KB, 500x500px
>>
>>8838429
And this is a literature board, yet you can't read.
>>
>>8838437
>explicitly make a point of indicating he's not in high school
>is actually in high school
>it's blatantly obvious
>>
File: Christian-Roth-for-Optical-Affairs-Sunglasses-FrontView-Series-KL2-green-reptile-375_large.jpg (53KB, 500x492px) Image search:
[Google]
53KB, 500x492px
>>
>>8838417
>I don't see what there is to gain from any of that.
That is generally called New Criticism. There are far more heady ways to assess literature.
Pick up Parker's "How to Interpret Literature" for a fairly easy to approach assessment of the various fields of literary criticism(viewing literature as a science) and how the developed.
You'll likely feel at home with Reader Response theory.
Additionally, things like Structuralism and Deconstruction will likely help you understand that literature can be viewed critically without being dissected for "elements".
The truth is, criticism is a spectrum:
You decide between the authorial intent, the reader, and the text as primary devices through which we understand literature. Does it matter why Hemingway decided to write a story, or is the way we interpret it as people reading it in 2016 what gives it meaning? Those types of questions are at the foundation of basic literary criticism, from the conclusions one makes dealing with basic problems like that far more complex fields of study branch off.
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3