At first glance, I didn’t think I’d like this text. Why? I felt that it would be a bit more dry than it really is. Jago uses various examples to demonstrate ideas and concepts that seem simple, yet are far from it.
Let’s talk about the seven principles, shall we?
Students Must Read
This seems obvious, doesn’t it? The traditional view of an English classroom revolves around reading and writing. Why wouldn’t students read? What I think Jago is trying to get at here, is that students read without reading. How does that make sense? Let me be frank with you. I can read a text for class and have the correct answers without having understood a single theme or extended metaphor contained therein. Why do students read? To have the answers for quizzes and tests.
That isn’t enough. Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, as mentioned by Jago, is perfectly employed here. As teachers, we need to choose texts that are difficult for our students. The idea is that they can read, analyze and perhaps begin to understand these texts with our help. If students can read texts used in class on their own, then what are they getting out of it? Think about it. You’re reading a blog. It is written clearly, yet with an obvious disregard for grammar, sequencing and complexity of thought. What do you get out of that? Perhaps a few minutes have gone by, maybe a fact or two learned, and the ability to say you read it. Schools expect more from students. Teachers should too.
Don’t confuse reading for pleasure with the study of literature
This one fascinates me. Dictionary.com defines literature as:
–noun
1. writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.
2. the entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc.: the literature of England.
3. the writings dealing with a particular subject: the literature of ornithology.
4. the profession of a writer or author.
5. literary work or production.
6. any kind of printed material, as circulars, leaflets, or handbills: literature describing company products.
7. Archaic . polite learning; literary culture; appreciation of letters and books.
This does not seem to compare with schools’ stodgy ideas of literature. What is literature to the education system? The canon. Face it, this is what we are preparing for. The classic canonical works are something to be revered, cherished, and held aloft from the average student understanding, yes? Wrong. Once again, we need to use these texts in a way that we are helping students to understand them. Notice the word helping. If your students can understand these texts flawlessly, then perhaps spark notes have gotten too good.
The one idea in this section that I disagree wholeheartedly with is that the reading for pleasure has nothing to do with literature. I’ve very often read Shakespeare’s sonnets, Canterbury Tales and various other “classics” for pleasure. Did I do a thorough analysis, line-by-line, searching for themes, metaphors, alliteration and the like? No. What I did do, however, was learn to appreciate and understand the text outside of that context. It is wonderful to be able to pick out these literary devices, but I believe that getting a feel for the text is more important than that. Will students be tested on literary devices? Yes. Do they need to know them? Yes. Are they end-all-be-all of reading and studying literature? Certainly not. If they were, we would all be in trouble. Every last one of us who enjoys the great poets and plays of the greats would be banished from the literature discussion.
There is also this idea of people dumbing down texts to meet the readers face-to-face. I’m sure that our previous literary scholars would scoff at this idea, but is it really that bad? I think not. The more individuals that hear about the trials of Oedipus and the woes of Macbeth the better. Are they studying these works in a “literature context?” No, but do they need to be?
I honestly believe that allowing students to read and form ideas and opinions of the text on their own before breaking it down in class is ideal. I want students to try and figure out why things happened that particular way or why the author chose to implement that particular style without worrying about the hazards of allegory and foreshadowing. After all, that’s what the classroom is for, isn’t it?
Don’t simply assign difficult books; teach them.
Once again, this seems obvious. It’s anything but. We arrive safely back into Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development with this section. I’m sure there are some teachers who believe in assigning difficult texts merely to see the students struggle to figure it out. Yes, hard work is necessary to understand Milton and Kafka. However, teachers need to make sure that they are actually teaching the book and not just ideas that can be associated with the book. It’s not just what onomatopoeia is, it’s how the author employed it and why it was used in that instance. We shouldn’t just discuss the idea of a diverging plot without giving students a clear understanding of what that is in this particular text.
One bias that I think Jago employs in her book is the idea that contemporary literature does not pose enough canonical questions to students. I would bet that for every great piece of literature in the classics, we would find a contemporary novel dealing with the same issues. It wouldn’t be done in the same way, but they are still there. I am most definitely not arguing for more contemporary literature than classics, but I find that contemporary works can enhance the ideas of a canonical piece immensely. They do not need to be mutually exclusive. Use them together.
Reading literature requires language study and builds vocabulary
I’ll admit it. I love words. I love learning new words that can replace old ones. I love expanding my vocabulary so that I may employ a greater array of textual eye-candy. I also love the study of language. I’m not talking about diagramming sentences or arguing about predicate nominatives. I’m talking about the origins of language, word formation processes, phonetics and all of those other fun topics.
Many students hate these things. That is a fact that we, as teachers, need to rally against. How do we expand the reluctant student’s vocabulary? They need to read texts that offer a strong vocabulary that can enhance their pre-existing list of useful words. Why is this necessary? Students must be able to infer meaning through context clues or have a strong idea of what words mean in order to understand the text they are used in.
Reading literature builds background knowledge.
I cannot stress this point enough. There are so many texts that I wish my high school had used. The main reason for my sentiment here is that I needed that vital background information. Many classrooms and texts build on references from canonical works. If you don’t have the background information from these source texts, then many of these references will not make any sense.
However, we cannot solely rely on our students having all of the required background information. Much of this is going to be inferred, researched or overlooked by our students. As teachers, it should be one of our endless goals to help students recognize and understand references like this. Allow students to glean background information without having read the original text. Doesn’t that sound grand? It sure won’t be easy.
Reading literature educates students’ imaginations.
This is one aspect of literature—all forms of literature, which speaks to me loud and clear. I have a (not-so) secret love for fantasy novels. Although it may not seem like it, texts such as Oedipus and King Lear offer some of those same elements that I love about my fantasy novels. We get a sense of mysticism with a strong dose of possibility. All of these things can strongly influence the imaginations of readers. I think that it’s important to encourage students to use the inspirational scenes from canonical works in their own writing.
Yes, students have to write boring assignments such as the dreaded persuasive letter. Why not make it a letter persuading the king of a foreign planet to allow humans access to their planet’s resources? A simple assignment can take a twist toward the imaginative with a small dose of classical influence.
Metaphorical thinking is a life skill.
Professor Pytash is a flower of the most azure hue… Oops, wrong context. How many times a day do students use metaphors without realizing it? That is perhaps the idea that Jago is trying to portray here. Is Professor Pytash really a flower? No she is not, although her husband may compare her to one. Why are metaphors important? They are everywhere. This doesn’t just occur in textual formats, but in examples like the apple logo for Apple computers.
I’m not really sure how metaphor trumps all other literary devices, but I can understand its importance. We don’t experience just metaphors in our daily lives. We often come across simile (she was rabid like your neighbor’s dog), foreshadowing (c’mon, you had to know the lights going off in the movies means the killer is inside the house), rhyme (you’re a poet and didn’t know it!), and theme (ever been to a traveling art exhibit?). Literary (I use the term loosely here) devices infiltrate every aspect of our lives. They are not restricted to literature, now are they?
No comments:
Post a Comment