<p>In many of our English classes, we seem to spend large amounts of time reading old books and drawing out symbols, devices, and hidden meanings. What is the actual use of this, and if it is useful, why do our educators often place more value upon said classes than the sciences, social sciences, or mathematics?</p>
<p>Literature is not useful in the same way as math and science are, but there is some merit in analyzing it.</p>
<p>Drawing out the deeper meaning of the work may reveal what the author thinks of society, human nature, and other such topics. This allows us to understand the dynamics of a particular intellectual movement through the literature it produced, and to better understand the culture and environment that the author came from. Thus, analyzing literature can help stimulate us to think more critically about our own culture and society.</p>
<p>The wonder in finding this sort of meaning in literature increases our appreciation of it as a work of art. In connection with that, the appeal in analyzing literature can be similar to appreciating art: both allow people to creatively express their feelings and ideas in an aesthetically pleasing way.</p>
<p>energize is pretty right on.</p>
<p>Analyzing literature allows you to have a deeper, richer understanding of and appreciation for it. It can often relate to your own life in ways you don’t even realize until you start analyzing stuff on a deep level. I find lit that relates to my own life, human nature, universal truths, philosophy, and the like more useful to me then memorizing s*** about photosynthesis, but to each his own I guess.</p>
<p>I agree. Energize and quomodo are pretty right…</p>
<p>I like analyzing literature. :)</p>
<p>It’s fracking useless.</p>
<p>What’s useful then?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, learning about photosynthesis and related processes is vital to understanding the earth, it’s survival, and ultimately the survival of several species.</p>
<p>
- Interpreting possible symbolism in literature is a terribly indirect way to learn about different intellectual movements. That’s a topic for social science courses, and it should be covered with the analysis of nonfiction essays or books written to clearly profess the beliefs of a particular cultural or intellectual movement.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>One of the justifications for teaching English - not just history or political science - is that students can improving their own written communication skills by learning from the works they read. However, this goal is ill-served by reading literature that obfuscates its true intent to such a degree that complex analysis is necessary. That’s poor communication.</p></li>
<li><p>Forcing students to take courses involving literary analysis may actually poison them against the potentially valuable ideas buried within the literature in question. See the excerpt from Kohn under the tag of “being forced to study material destroys interest” in my post here: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1066046040-post18.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1066046040-post18.html</a></p></li>
</ol>
<p>So, I argue that high school students should not be required to interpret literature in order to graduate.
The amount of personal aesthetic satisfaction achieved from appreciating a work of art is 100% subjective.</p>
<p>^only on cc…</p>
<p>^ Does that mean I win at life?</p>
<p>^ Well I agree with you. I don’t use commas correctly, but at least I can read into your post and pull out some meanings that don’t have any value to me in the real world.</p>
<p>Sometimes I have to wonder if the writer really intentionally inserted the literary devices and meanings (I mean everything that we analyze in english, ap lang, etc) or if we’re just trying to crowbar meaning out of passages that are mostly meaningless.</p>
<p>On a pragmatic level, if schools didn’t assign readings than most high school students would never pick up a book.</p>
<p>Generally this doesn’t apply to ccers since welp they generally read more than others, but most kids I know have only ever read books that were assigned to them.</p>
<p>
Pretty much everything but English. Driver’s ed was more useful than English.</p>
<p>^^ Many people don’t read the books anyways. I use Spark Notes all the time.</p>
<p>
See the #3 response in post #8.</p>
<p>yeah I read that when I was going through the thread and I didn’t care for it. Thanks for drawing my attention back to it, though.</p>
<p>^ Silence is compliance.</p>
<p>Congratulations, you can put together (or quote) a rhyme. It must be factual if it rolls off the tongue!</p>
<p>I am debating responding to your point, but at the same time I really don’t care to argue with you. Well, your ego.</p>
<p>
Whatever you want. My points all stand.</p>